Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a second time on Wednesday 21 July at Seven o'clock.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the PSBR since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of public sector borrowing.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In the first two months of the financial year, the public sector borrowing requirement was £9·3 billion. A deficit of that magnitude is too high and we intend to reduce it.

Mr. Williams: During the 1992 Budget debates, the Chancellor's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kinston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), published Treasury forecasts of a borrowing requirement of £32 billion this year, falling to £25 billion next year, £19 billion the following year and £6 billion by 1996–97. In reality, we have a deficit of £50 billion this year and, far from falling away as was predicted, it is a recurring deficit, the Chancellor's biggest problem and an albatross around the neck of the country's economy, perhaps for years to come. Can he explain to me, and to the people of this country, why we were so misled at the time of the general election, and how the Government have got us into this mess?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will find that all forecasts for the PSBR tend to be hedged around with uncertainty. A range of forecasts is being made about next

year and £50 billion is the Government's current forecast, which is at the upper end of the range. One thing of which I am quite sure is that the forecasts will all have changed by the time that I get to the Budget, let alone at any other time. I propose to make a judgment in the light of the circumstances prevailing when we get to the November Budget.
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, however. The deficit was not planned, or the result of anticipated action. To the surprise of almost every forecaster, the recession in this country was more persistent and lasted longer than anyone expected, thereby causing a longer fall in revenues than anyone expected. The Government have to face up to the consequences of that, and Britain will be one of the foremost countries in Europe in tackling its fiscal deficit.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, unlike the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Conservative party has no intention of further expanding the PSBR and placing a greater burden on future generations? Also, was it not the last Labour Government who had to run to the International Monetary Fund because they could not control public spending either?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. Quite rightly, we face questioning about the size of the PSBR from the Opposition as well as from our own supporters. I get pressed by Conservative Back Benchers to take vigorous action to deal with it. It is impossible for either the Liberals or the Labour party to make a speech from the Opposition Benches without advocating measures that would increase the amount of public sector debt and borrowing. That makes their contribution to debate on the issue seem somewhat irrelevant to real life and to the task of sustaining our recovery and getting out of the recession.

Mr. Sheldon: In the light of the horrendous PSBR, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluding the one area that is easy for him to handle—the level of higher rates of income tax? Those were reduced at a time when the Government thought that the economy was doing well. Now that he understand the reality, why does he not reverse the process?

Mr. Clarke: Because throughout the 1980s extremely valuable supply-side effects resulted from reducing direct taxation from the disgraceful and punitive level at which it was left by the previous Government. I have made no decisions about taxation for the Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, knows perfectly well that the revenue-raising consequences of increasing the top rates of income tax are quite slight, but he typifies what I just described—that the only solution that the Opposition can ever think of, in response to such problems, is to put up taxation on somebody or other. If that is the Opposition's only approach, it is damaging to the country's prospects of doing well in the economic world.

Sir Peter Tapsell: In the same spirit that I heretically urged his predecessor, in the salad days of Friedmanite monetarism, to show caution about the Treasury's capacity accurately to measure sterling M3, may I now counsel—it may not be necessary, but, as I have already prepared the question, I shall go ahead—a little caution to my right hon. and learned Friend before he prostrates


himself before the altar of a £50 billion PSBR estimate, because that notoriously unreliable statistic could lead us into unnecessary difficulty? As experience has shown, the outcome may prove to be billions wide of the mark—no pun intended—either way.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, who knows me well, realises that I have never drunk of the pure milk of monetarism, any more than he or Lord Lawson did. That remains my view, which is why I dealt with some scepticism with the question about previous forecasts of the size of the public sector borrowing requirement.
Nevertheless, it is important to underline the fact that we face a serious problem. The figure that I gave in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) shows that, at present, the monthly PSBR is running in line with the forecast. If it falls faster than I expect, I can probably deal with any problems that that may cause with considerable ease.
However, it is preferable for me to take those forecasts as the best that we have and ensure that I do not just assume that things will come out better but behave prudently and ensure that we are certain that we will get our fiscal deficit down. At the moment, it is one of the principal obstacles that would otherwise lie in the way of sustaining our recovery, which is why it is so blindly irresponsible of Opposition Members simply to suggest that I put up some spending and some taxes.

Ms Harman: Will the Chancellor tell the House that he totally repudiates the proposals of the Tory 1992 Group, particularly its proposal that he should cut 5 per cent. of the public sector work force? Given that that is 300,000 people and that making them unemployed would add £2·7 billion to the dole bill, does he agree that the way to reduce the deficit is not to put more people out of work but to bring unemployment down?

Mr. Clarke: I had an extremely friendly and useful discussion with the executive of the 1992 Group, who presented me with proposals to deal with the problem. Their proposals were infinitely more worked out than any yet produced by the Labour or Liberal parties. I share the instincts of my colleagues in the 1992 committee working group—I think that they call it that—that, in the interests of the economy and taxpayers, we should look first at means of restraining public expenditure. It is hopeless to regard public services, as the hon. Lady always has, as a kind of job creation agency. We can deliver high-quality public services in a more cost-effective way. One has only to look at the effects of contracting out on local government services, and the amount that that is now saving council tax payers in various parts of the country, to see what can be achieved.

European Courts

Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed with his ministerial colleagues from other member states of the European Community the question of additional financial assistance being given to the Court of Auditors and the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The last formal meeting of the Budget Council of Ministers was on 16 November 1992, when we discussed the 1993

Community budget, including provision for the Court of Auditors and Court of Justice. Since then, discussions have proceeded informally and through officials.

Dr. Godman: Are Ministers aware of the serious difficulties encountered by the European Court of Justice in ensuring the timeous translation of cases submitted to it by member states, the opinions of its advocate-generals and its own judgments? Does he agree that there is no point in seeking to ensure that the European Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors carry out their work in ensuring compliance with Community law if they are so badly financed by member states by way of the budget?

Sir John Cope: I am certainly aware of some of the delays that take place in the Court of Justice, although they do not occur so much in the Court of Auditors. Both institutions have had increases in financial assistance of an average of 10 per cent. a year for the past couple of years. I do not think that is bad and it means that they do not need such a large increase this year.

Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend consider ceasing financing the antics of the European Court of Justice altogether and does he think that it is right for it to sit in judgment of the tourist beaches in Britain, especially when so many Mediterranean coastlines and beaches are awash with sewage?

Sir John Cope: One cannot agree with all the judgments that courts make, but that is not a reason for ceasing to finance them or abolishing them altogether.

Growth Rate

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparisons the European Commission has made between Britain's projected growth rate over the next two years and the growth rate in other countries of the EC.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The European Commission expects that Britain will be the fastest growing major Community country in both this year and next.

Mr. Thompson: On the day when unemployment is continuing to fall in my constituency of Norwich, North and throughout the country, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that over-regulation of the social and labour markets can damage growth, as has happened in Spain, for example, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe? Will he comment on the folly of those in the House who seek to add to the burdens on industry at a time when business is reviving and unemployment is falling?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the highest proportion of population in work of any country in the European Community with the exception of Denmark and, I think, Luxembourg. We have always shown the capacity to create jobs more quickly than other European countries because we have avoided the tightly regulated labour markets and the excessive burdens on industry, which are part of the tradition of some continental countries. It is a pity that that tradition is being reinforced by the social chapter making problems worse, in my opinion, in Germany, Spain and elsewhere. It is extremely important that we in Britain stick to our


opt-out from the social chapter, which is helping to achieve a much more buoyant recovery in our labour market.

Mr. Trimble: It not it the case that better prospects for the United Kingdom growth rate are due to the fact that we were ejected from the exchange rate mechanism and were thus able to reduce interest rates and reduce the level of sterling? Is not the last thing that we want now either to see interest rates maintained at a higher level than necessary or to see sterling appreciate? Is not there a case for some action on that front?

Mr. Clarke: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question in my opinion is no. The five-points reduction in interest rates that we achieved before we left the ERM was as important a contribution to our recovery as the four-point reduction in interest rates that followed. We were seeing the beginnings of recovery before we left the ERM and we are now seeing the results of many of the supply-side changes that we made in the British economy.
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer questions on any further action on interest rates. I shall make judgments as and when they are necessary in the light of the monetary guidelines that I have laid out before the House.

Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the way in which to create real jobs is to have sustained economic growth, rather than the Keynesian-inspired spending sprees supported by the Opposition parties?

Mr. Clarke: What is now called Keynesian does not often bear much resemblance to the work of John Maynard Keynes, who was very good on monetary policy. I agree that I do not think that John Maynard Keynes or anyone else would have advocated a spending spree to boost the economy at a time of a large fiscal deficit of the kind that we are carrying and is being forecast. That is not an option open to us. Unfortunately, it is an option which is usually seized by the Labour and Liberal parties because they are so detached from the real world.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Should not the Chancellor be alarmed rather than complacent about the finding of the competitiveness unit published this week that British productivity is 25 per cent. below our main competitors, that what it calls our low skills base and research effort are among the worst in Europe, that our national income per head is falling behind that of Finland, Iceland and Italy and that it is now falling to the levels in Spain and Portugal? Amid all those challenges, and now that we have a new Chancellor, where are the new policies?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has taken some selective readings from the extremely valuable document on competitiveness produced yesterday. At least it has enabled him to ask a question without adding to the public sector borrowing requirement, as far as I noticed. He comments on our level of productivity. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is right to point out that our productivity is still below that of some of our major competitors, most notably the Japanese.
Throughout the 1980s, we have had the fastest improvement in productivity of any of the G7 nations. It shows how bad things were in 1979 that we still have not caught up with our foremost competitors. If the hon.
Gentleman looks at the good news today, yesterday and the day before, he will see that the improvements in productivity in British industry during the recovery are quite remarkable and have contributed to the 3 per cent. increase in manufacturing output compared with a year ago, which is the first substantial achievement of this recovery.

Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the latest statistics on the rapid and dramatic decline in car sales in EC countries? Sales there have dropped by no less than 17 per cent. over the past six months, whereas in this country which, thank goodness, is out of the exchange rate mechanism and can again enjoy the benefits of low interest rates and growing demand, we have had double-digit increases in car sales. Would not the French and the Spanish industrialists, for example, agree that the British are much luckier than they are because we are not constrained by artificially high interest rates?

Mr. Clarke: There are other countries that were forced out of the ERM and not all of them are enjoying a British recovery. In terms of the ERM, my hon. Friend is right to point out that the buoyant state of car sales in this country is not matched in other major centres in the European Community. The fact is—let me be cautious again—that we are showing some signs of recovery and it is being sustained at the moment, although we must persevere to keep that up and trust that it strengthens.
In Germany, in France and even in Japan, there are falls in manufacturing output on the latest figures, whereas we have just seen the encouraging figures showing 3 per cent. more than a year ago in our manufacturing output announced only two days ago.

Bank of England

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy regarding payment for work carried out at the Bank of England by sub-contractors; and if he will make a statement.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Under the Bank of England charter of 1946, such management matters are for the court of directors of the Bank and not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that the Bank maintains a policy of prompt payment against validated invoices for work carried out by its contractors.

Mr. Dowd: I thank the Chief Secretary for that reply and I also thank him on behalf of R. M. Simpson, a small heating contractor in my constituency, which has been waiting two years for the settlement of a £250,000 bill for work carried out at the Bank of England. The company eventually received a reply from the Chief Secretary once I raised the question in the House.
Is not it a disgrace that work done at the Bank of England cannot be regarded as secure and that the Bank does not ensure that the money is passed on to those working for contractors who are working for the Bank—those who actually do the work? The financial framework under which they execute their contracts needs a complete overhaul, especially for the sake of small businesses which are struggling in these difficult times.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have been in correspondence. Mr. Simpson carried out


work for Taymech; in turn, Taymech worked for Bovis, and Bovis was doing some work for the Bank of England. There is a dispute about a claim for loss of expenses. The matter certainly does not rest with the Bank of England and is certainly not a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no valid invoice from Simpson to the Bank of England; nor could there be, because the contract rests not between Simpson and the Bank of England, but between Simpson and Taymech.

Mr. Jessel: As to work carried out in the Bank of England by contractors, has the Governor got a contract and is it in his contract that he must try to stifle comment in the House on the rate of interest?

Mr. Portillo: No. That is not one of the Governor's responsibilities. He plays an important part in the vital matter of controlling inflation and I pay tribute to his dedication in that matter.

Tax and National Insurance

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase income tax and national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall be considering options for tax changes in the next Budget over the summer and in the autumn.

Mr. Mullin: I know that the Chancellor is not readily given to embarrassment, but does he feel a tiny twinge of guilt at having been elected on a promise of lower taxes and now to be presiding over some of the largest increases in our country's history. Or am I being naive?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Clarke: I am not frequently embarrassed and the hon. Gentleman is not frequently naive. As he knows, we have made spectacular progress, beyond what anyone in his party would have thought possible, in reducing direct taxation. We did so for supply-side reasons and, when we first began to get rid of the extraordinarily high levels of direct taxation that we inherited, we found that revenue actually increased as we reduced the level of tax. We have now cut marginal rates of income tax to 25 per cent. and introduced a lower rate of 20 per cent. as well.
We are committed to continuing to reduce income tax when it is prudent to do so. I do not think that it lies in the mouth of any Labour Member to criticise the Government for their tax-cutting record.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the basic rate of income tax at 25 per cent. and national insurance at 9 per cent., the working man has to pay over one third of his income in tax? Is not that level sufficiently high? Is not the big difference between the Labour party and our party the fact that we believe in taking as little as possible from the pay packet of the working man, whereas the Labour party believes in caning taxpayers, particularly those who are hard-working and enterprising?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. If I were a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, my Back Benchers would be urging on me a rapid increase in taxation of all kinds. However, I am a Conservative Chancellor, and my

hon. Friend reminds me of the basic commitment of the party. I will bear that in mind when I prepare my Budget in the autumn.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Chancellor said on Monday that no Chancellor could bind himself on taxation, yet at the time of the general election the Prime Minister said that there would be income tax cuts "year on year". Whom are we to believe—the present Prime Minister or the Chancellor, who clearly hopes to be the next Prime Minister?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have related the Government's record on income tax. I do not recall the Labour party voting for any of the reductions in income tax, so the idea that those tax cuts are suddenly being held against us or are being adopted by the Labour party strikes me as unlikely. The commitment of the Government is to continue to cut direct taxation and income tax when economic circumstances permit and when it is prudent to do so.

Corporation Tax

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current level of corporation tax is in Britain and in other industrialised countries; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The main rate of corporation tax for 1993 is 33 per cent. That is the lowest main rate in any EC or G7 country.

Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the low rate of business tax, coupled with a massive increase in manufacturing productivity since 1979, is a key reason why Britain has become the most popular of the European countries for inward investment? Does he also agree that that inward investment is creating jobs in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The figures show that the United Kingdom attracted one third of all inward investment into the European Community in 1991. That is a vote of confidence from the internationally mobile business community. It is also an expression of what Mr. Delors called our policy of turning Britain into a paradise for Japanese investment.

Mr. Macdonald: Corporation tax is, obviously, one of a number of taxes. Will the Minister confirm that the share of national wealth paid to the Government in overall taxation is now higher than it was in 1979? Does the Minister agree that, after 14 years of a Government committed to reducing taxation as a proportion of national wealth, that is an abject failure on the Government's own terms?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's question is yet another illustration of the total failure of the Labour party to understand how a tax system impinges on the wealth-creation process. What matters is the marginal rate at which tax is collected on wealth creation.
The difference beween the Labour party and our party on corporation tax is that, under the Labour party, 52 per cent. of every marginal £1 of profit that was earned in a corporation was paid to the Government. That has fallen


to 33 per cent. under the present Government. That is the incentive to wealth creation which has attracted international investment to this country.

Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's determination that this country should be allowed to set our own rate of corporation tax without interference from the EC, because it is so vital to our competitiveness. Will he undertake to maintain that right, come what may?

Mr. Dorrell: That is indeed the Government's position. It was endorsed during the British presidency of the European Community when the subject was under discussion last year. It was not a controversial view among any of the member states of the Community.

Mr. Darling: The Chancellor has said that he may have to increase taxes in the autumn to meet the growing public sector borrowing requirement deficit. How much of that deficit do the Government estimate is structural, and how much cyclical?

Mr. Dorrell: The Chancellor has said that he will make his Budget judgments and announce his conclusions in November, and I am certainly not going to pre-empt those conclusions.

VAT on Fuel

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which organisations he has held discussions on the impact on charities of VAT on fuel and power.

Sir John Cope: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have received representations from a number of charities and I have particularly had discussions with the Charities Tax Reform Group.

Sir John Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he has shown the representatives from the charities at those meetings. Will he take into account the fact that in recent years charities have faced an ever-increasing burden of non-recoverable VAT, and the £25 million in VAT on fuel and power in addition to that is presenting them with major problems? Will he therefore give sympathetic consideration to the proposal for a tax refund system for charities; and will he give the Charities Tax Reform Group an opportunity to meet him between now and the Budget?

Sir John Cope: The allowances against VAT given to charities have increased since 1979 from about £23 million a year to about £150 million a year—a fact which my hon. Friend should bear in mind. Of course, I will consider any proposals put to us, and I will be pleased to see the Charities Tax Reform Group again before the Budget, if it should so wish.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the imposition of VAT on charities and on the people of this country would not have been necessary if the Government had collected the £1·7 billion that the Inland Revenue wrote off in uncollected taxes last year? That was about 20 times the amount uncollected in the last recession. Does he believe that this recession is 20 times as bad, or is it time

for the Government to start looking at collecting taxes from those who owe them instead of imposing new burdens on charities and others who cannot afford them?

Sir John Cope: Both on VAT and on the Inland Revenue side, we go to great efforts to collect all the taxes due, and we shall continue to do so. Of course, it is to be expected that that is more difficult in a recession, when the figures, of course, go up.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend call in the charities again and discuss with them the thinking of the Labour and Liberal parties as set out in their policy documents, so that he can make it clear to them that a carbon tax or a tax on energy would be what those parties would advocate were they in government now?

Sir John Cope: I will certainly make that point clear.

Mr. Betts: At the general election, the Government gave an absolute commitment that there would be no increase either in the level or the range of VAT. They have broken that commitment by imposing VAT on domestic fuel, to the detriment of the elderly and the poor. Is any consideration being given to the imposition of VAT on public transport, which was also ruled out at the general election and which would be a move that would also disadvantage the poor, the elderly and the young, and create traffic congestion in our cities?

Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates what was said before the election. He has obviously not paid attention to the many debates that we have had on the subject recently

Growth Rate

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of growth for the United Kingdom economy for the last 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the average figure for the rest of the EC.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the first quarter of this year, GDP in the United Kingdom was 0·9 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Over the same period, GDP in Germany fell by 2·8 per cent. and GDP in France fell 0·6 per cent. In the year to the fourth quarter of 1992—the latest period for which complete figures are available—GDP in the EC as a whole fell by 0·1 per cent.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that increasing exports are vital to our economic recovery, and that the Prime Minister's championship of free trade and his excellent achievement in putting the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations back on the rails are the best tonic that our economy and its recovery could have?

Mr. Clarke: I do agree. It is encouraging to see British industry performing so well in non-European Community markets. We would perform even better in the EC if demand there were not dropping because our partners are still going into recession.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that, because of our record as a trading country and the need to have an export-led recovery, we have to encourage free trade. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's contribution to maintaining progress towards a successful conclusion of
the Uruguay round is very much in our interest. It is also in the interest of everybody who wishes to see economic revival generally across the western world.

Mr. Mandelson: In the light of the Prime Minister's comments on Tuesday, when he made his statement following the G7 summit, that the Government were working on new ideas and initiatives to contribute to President Clinton's employment summit in the autumn, will the Chancellor tell the House what specifically new policy ideas and initiatives are being worked out in the Treasury?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the Treasury is closely involved in discussions with my right hon. Friends in the relevant Departments, such as Employment and Education, to continue to work out policy on education and training, particularly for those between the ages of 16 and 19. As we now spend two and half times as much as was spent on those sectors before we came to power, and as we have introduced a series of training initiatives, all of which were opposed—as far as I can recall—by the Labour party, it is likely that we can be expected to build on an excellent record, having inherited a somewhat bare cupboard.

Mr. Forman: The Chancellor has every reason to be satisfied with our relative performance on economic growth as compared with our partners in the Community in recent times. However, does he recognise, and will he therefore take steps to push forward the idea, that we must be competitive internationally with the new super-competitive countries in the Pacific rim, where growth rates are significantly higher?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. For the next generation, we will remain at the forefront of developed and prosperous countries only if we are able to compete with our most challenging competitors—the Japanese and the countries of the Pacific rim and, probably, the north American economies if they recover their normal powerful growth. That is why we have not only to ensure that our own climate is right, but to persuade our European Community partners that Europe as a continent will fall behind if we saddle ourselves with costs on employment and restraints on economic change, which they do not impose on themselves when they are trying to earn their living in Japan or north America.

Mr. Andrew Smith: As 60 per cent. of Britain's exports are to the rest of the EC, is not there a real danger that recession there will knock back the export-led recovery, which we need to sustain us here? Does not that make it all the more important that everything possible is done jointly with our European partners to get economic recovery going in Europe and not have further deflation? What new proposals will the Chancellor put to the European Commission, which is producing the White Paper that will be the basis for the joint economic policy under the Maastricht treaty? Is not it an indictment of the new Chancellor that he has not been able to tell us one new proposal for recovery this afternoon?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is extremely important to us that the rest of the Community comes out of recession, because it is our most important market and we need to see

demand revived there. That is why I was glad to take part in the convergence process. I was glad that the Community welcomed the steps that the Government are taking to cut the public deficit and public finances and to improve prospects for recovery. That is why I look forward to urging the Community to take the necessary measures to tackle exactly the same problems, particularly of fiscal deficits, which many member states face.
The main proposal that I shall make to the European Commission is that it should stop putting new burdens on employment and industry. We will certainly make our suggestions for the forthcoming White Paper. They will be based on increased efforts to improve the competitiveness of European industry, including our own, ever-more flexible labour markets, improved education and training, benefits systems that ensure that incentives for work are maintained and keep the unemployed close to employment, and all the other supply-side measures on which the Government have been leading the way in Europe for the past 14 years.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom can make a major contribution to continued economic growth? Therefore, will he consider not only extending capital allowances, which run out at the end of October, but increasing them—they could either run on immediately from 31 October or be introduced in his Budget—because manufacturing industry, particularly epitomised through the Machine Tool Technologies Association, can make a major contribution not only to increasing efficiency and productivity, but to aiding our economic growth?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry. That is why, when asked about other matters, I kept putting stress on the figures for manufacturing output that we had two days ago. They show that, in the past few months, we have already recovered about half of the drop in output that we suffered in the depths of the recession. My hon. Friend made a Budget representation about capital allowances, which I shall carefully bear in mind. I hope that he will consult his friends in manufacturing industry about his views on the social chapter and his proposed voting intentions in the light of what I have just said about placing burdens on manufacturing industry.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase manufacturing investment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: The Government will continue to foster an economic climate which will encourage investment.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that many industrialists and business men in manufacturing do not share that complacent view of his policy? Is it not the case that manufacturing investment at constant prices year on year is still at a level below that at which it was when the Government came to office in 1979? Does he agree that that is not a good record? When will we have new policies that will start to increase manufacturing investment?

Mr. Dorrell: It is extraordinary that we have been on Treasury Questions for 35 minutes and not a single Labour


Member has chosen to refer to the fact that, today, we announced that unemployment has fallen for the fifth month in succession. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has a point that will embarrass the Government, but he is wrong. If we compare business investment in 1992 with that in 1979–1979 being the top of the nearest thing that the Labour party got to a boom and 1992 being a poor year in our record—that in 1992 was 37 per cent. higher in real terms than that in 1979.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the drop in unemployment in my constituency, which is down to 7·5 per cent? Will he keep paramount in his Department the interests of manufacturing industry and the people who work in it and in commerce because it is on them that we all depend?

Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I am glad to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that his constituency, among many others, is enjoying a fall in unemployment and has been for five months this year. That is, at least in part, because business investment through the 1980s grew faster than in any other G7 country, with the single exception of Japan. That is in sharp contrast to the record of business investment growth in the 1970s when the country was at the bottom of the league—seventh out of seven. In the 1980s, it was second out of seven.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that, while the House welcomes his commitment to a general economic climate that will promote growth, the two essential ingredients necessary to achieve that are a competitive exchange rate and low interest rates? While we do not expect from him or from the Chancellor any commitment on those points, could not there be a general sign from the Government that those two quintessential requirements for sustained economic growth, which we are now witnessing, will be foremost in their minds, not only as they formulate the Budget later in the year, but in the next few weeks and months?

Mr. Dorrell: If devaluation were the path to economic expansion, the 1970s would have been glory years rather than locust years. The Government believe that the best backdrop that we can deliver to allow business to invest, expand and create jobs and wealth is to provide monetary stability and price stability, which give the opportunity for long-range planning, rather than the short-termism that was imposed on the private sector when the hon. Gentleman tried to run a company against the impossible background created by the then Labour Government.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the good employment figures in my own constituency of Harborough are to be welcomed? They are the lowest in the county, as he, as a Leicestershire Member, will recognise. Does he accept that one of the reasons for that is that manufacturers in my constituency have continued to invest in manufacturing industry, and that we have the fullest order books for some time, both domestically and in the export market? Would he care to comment on the good performance of Leicestershire manufacturing industry at the moment?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the success of manufacturing and, indeed, all other forms of economic activity in the county that both of us have the honour to represent. I have referred to

investment as being one of the things that brought that about. Another thing, of course, is the fact that productivity has grown in the last 12 months by 8·7 per cent. That has made possible a decline in unit wage costs in British manufacturing that is the best on record.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, but the fifth successive monthly fall in unemployment? Does he agree that the House deserves an apology from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for predicting a steady rise in unemployment over the spring and summer?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is unkind to remind the House of the predictions by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There have been a great deal of them—all wrong. If it would be for the convenience of the House, I will place a copy of them in the Library. The further fall in unemployment and inflation is very good news indeed. Unemployment has fallen by over 80,000 since the beginning of the year, and, taken with the remarkable figures on Tuesday for manufacturing output, we can now say with some certainty that there is clear evidence of recovery gathering pace.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that it should be for the House to decide whether the social chapter is included in the British version of the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: The House has examined the whole of the treaty. I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty; I expect that it will do so again.

Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister has carefully not answered the question. Let me put it to him plainly and clearly. Whichever way the House votes on the social chapter, will the Government accept the decision?

The Prime Minister: I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, and I repeat, that I expect the Government's motion to be carried, and I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed.

Mr. John Smith: The House and the country will have noticed another failure to answer the question directly. Does the Prime Minister understand that, were he to defy the will of the House of Commons, it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the House, and would at one fell swoop undermine our parliamentary democracy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps does not understand the answers. I will make them more clear for him, so that he is in no


doubt. We expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty; I expect it to do so again.

Mr. Lamont: This month, like last, has seen a remarkable catalogue of good economic indicators. Is it not the case that, in addition to the fifth fall in monthly unemployment, we have seen the largest increase in industrial production for four years and the lowest inflation record for nearly 30 years? When one puts that into a European context and sees that Britain has a lower than average rate of inflation in the European Community, is the only country in the European Community in which unemployment is falling, and is the only country in the European Community in which industrial production is rising, I congratulate the new Chancellor on the rapid success of his policies.

The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be most grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for his policies. It is entirely clear that we are coming out of recession and into recovery. It is equally clear that we are leading Europe into recovery.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that the Government have said to their rebels that nothing will stop them from ratifying the Maastricht treaty, but they have said to the House that adopting the social chapter would jeopardise the treaty? Both statements cannot be true; which is?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said about the social chapter. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten, but perhaps I can remind the House what he said:
I believe what is now being put forward in the social chapter may well lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis.
He continued:
The social chapter in the Maastricht agreement, it seems to me, is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last 12 or 15 years.
If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and he is true to his view, I shall expect to see him in our Lobby next Thursday.

Portsmouth

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has plans to pay an official visit to Portsmouth.

The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he has not visited Portsmouth since the general election, at a time when the so-called poll experts were predicting not only a Government defeat in general but, even more shamefully, the loss of my seat in particular? Will my right hon. Friend visit us again soon, preferably in the 50th anniversary year of D-day? Such a visit would not only mark the premier naval port of Portsmouth's vital contribution to our defence needs in the past, but mark its present contribution and the efforts it will make for many years in the future.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is an extremely forceful advocate for Portsmouth, and I am grateful for his

invitation. I understand how important the defence industry is to his constituents, and I hope that he will take every opportunity to remind them of two facts: that the Labour party would cut defence spending by a quarter, and that the Liberal Democrats would cut it by half. We hear a lot from the leader of the Liberal Democrats about taking military action in Bosnia; we hear rather less from him about how we would be able to take that action after his policy had dismantled the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Engagements

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the legal shackles on British trades unions, this week sacked Timex workers were banned from taking part in the national launch of the Timex boycott campaign, and banned from calling on the support of other British trade unionists?
What is banned here is legal elsewhere in Europe. Sacked Timex workers have been in France this week, exercising the democratic rights denied to them in their own country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the Government's record on labour law, which has isolated Britain in Europe and left British workers on their own, with no social chapter, no wages councils and no effective right to strike? The Government have turned Britain, once one of the workshops of the world, into one of the world's sweatshop economies.

The Prime Minister: The sort of behaviour that we saw from trade unionists at Timex is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to be proud of. I dare say that the jobs lost at Timex as a result will stand as the clearest evidence that the hon. Gentleman's policy is utterly the wrong way to look at labour and trade union relationships.

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend thank and congratulate the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 for its continuing efforts to protect the public from terrorist crimes, and especially their efforts yesterday? Does he agree that had we failed to pass the prevention of terrorism Act and gone down the path of giving away Northern Ireland—the policy of the Opposition—the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 might as well have been told by us to pack up their things and go back to traffic duty?

The Prime Minister: The police and the Security Service deserve our congratulations on their professionalism and vigilance. They have demonstrated that in fighting terrorism over many years. It is clear, and it has been endorsed repeatedly by the House, that we need the prevention of terrorism Act to defeat the terrorists. With the greatest goodwill in the world, I cannot understand why, year after year, Opposition Members have voted it down.

Mr. Boyce: In view of the Prime Minister's utterances in recent days `bout nuclear weapons being defensive measures, may I ask him to take this opportunity to assure the House, the country and the world that Britain will never use them first?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask such a daft question.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon dramatic improvements in a number of economic indicators which are of immense interest to the House and the country. Will he continue to encourage manufacturing industry as a way of improving our economy, and will he ensure that in the Budget to be announced in December, the fragile recovery of our manufacturing base, which is vital to our future, will continue to be encouraged and that measures will be introduced to ensure that recovery and continued economic growth?

The Prime Minister: The whole House knows and respects my hon. Friend's advocacy of manufacturing, so he will be as pleased as I am about the growing success of British manufacturers. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) introduced measures in the Budget and autumn statement to help manufacturing industry. I say also to my hon. Friend that the one thing that would do great damage to manufacturing industry would be the provisions of the social chapter.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Prime Minister realise that 500,000 of the present unemployed are aged between 18 and 24 and that, because of the cuts that he helped to introduce, they are having to manage on £4·97 a day? Does he think that that is enough to keep them in food and on which they can live? Will he take action now to end the discrimination against that age group, instead of making cheap political points at the expense of the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the training opportunities that exist for young people. I want youngsters to take up those training opportunities. That is what they are there for and it is in their interest to take them up.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's trade union reforms have made a significant contribution to Britain's increased industrial competitiveness over the past 10 years, while the trade unions have made a significant contribution to the Labour party's electoral uncompetitiveness over the same period?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I came across an interesting quote last week from a delegate at a Transport and General Workers Union conference, who said:
We are not the tail wagging the dog. We are the dog.
That is the true relationship between Labour and the unions. The unions are the dog and Labour is the lamp post.

Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hain: What is the Prime Minister going to do about corruption in his flagship council in Westminster? When will he stop crooks financing the Conservative party? Why did he allow 44 of his own Members to vote themselves tax privileges in the Lloyd's amendments on Tuesday? Is that why he is the most unpopular Prime Minister on record?

The Prime Minister: The best that can be said about that compendium question is that it is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fry: In welcoming the unemployment figure, will my right hon. Friend also take time to express vividly to all those in employment the cost of the social security budget, currently running at more than £60 a week for every worker? Does not that large sum justify the Government's intention to re-examine that budget?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that for the reasons that I have set out on a number of occasions in recent weeks. That problem is faced not only in Britain, but right across the European Community, in Japan, the United States and other industrial countries.

Open Government

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about open government. I am publishing today a White Paper—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so not only quickly but quietly so that we can hear the statement?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am publishing today a White Paper which marks the conclusion of a review that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked me to undertake in May last year. It is a significant step forward towards more openness, on which the Government have already made considerable progress.
The White Paper draws together two strands of policy that are not always associated by those who have campaigned for freedom of information—the citizen's right to find out and the Government's duty to inform. Governments can wait to be asked, but, across a whole range of policy areas, the objective should be to initiate the publication of information that is of practical use to people. That is a principle of the citizens charter, aimed at providing more information about services in a form that helps users of services to understand, to compare, to assert their rights and, wherever possible, to exercise choice.
That is why we are determined, for example, to publish comparative information on schools and why we have attached such importance to the publication of information measuring performance in transport, health and many other areas.
The White Paper builds on what has been achieved and takes progress further with six new steps. First, it sets out a new code of practice on access to information held by central Government. It commits the Government, for the first time, to a clear set of principles governing what information will be available and what can properly be withheld. It deals with the information that we shall aim to provide as a matter of course, including the facts, analysis and reasoning that lie behind decisions; and explanatory material, including internal guidance, dealing with Departments' rules and procedures in their dealings with the public.
The code includes a commitment to meet reasonable requests for factual information relating to the policies, actions and decisions of Departments, filling the gaps in the framework of published information.
Obviously, some categories of information will be exempt from that commitment. They are set out in part II of the draft code in annex A to the White Paper. Those categories will be familiar to those who have studied overseas access legislation and many areas of confidentiality would have been exempt also under the Right to Know Bill introduced this Session by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Chapter 3 of the White Paper explains the rationale for those exemptions, and for some issues on which we have taken a different approach from that adopted in the Bill.
The second and crucial step is that the new code will be independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—who has agreed to consider complaints that a Department has failed to provide information that should have been

provided under the code. This can be done under his existing powers if referred to him through a Member of Parliament.
Citizens will thus have an independent investigator working on their behalf. The ombudsman will be able to report to Parliament if he finds that information has been improperly withheld. Ministers and their Departments can be called to account if they are criticised by the ombudsman, as they can now be called to account for maladministration and injustice. Parliamentary accountability is enhanced, not diminished.
The code will apply in the first instance to Departments and other bodies within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner and his opposite number in Northern Ireland. However, the Government believe that similar codes could apply with advantage to the national health service and to local authorities. We shall consult representative interests, including the relevant professions and the local authority associations, before publishing further proposals covering those areas.
People have a direct interest in the accuracy and privacy of information held about them by Government. That is why our third proposal is to introduce a new statutory right of access for the subject to see such personal information, applying to a wide range of public sector authorities. There will be exemptions broadly in line with the Data Protection Act 1984, for example, where disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of tax. Confidential references will also be protected, as will certain other specified categories of personal information such as records relating to immigration, nationality and consular records.
The greatest number of representations received over the last year by my Department related to information held by Government in the area of public health and safety. That is why our fourth proposal is a new statutory access right to health and safety information held by public authorities, on the lines of the existing access right to environmental information. That will go beyond health and safety at work to include information on such matters as the safety of public places, transport, food and consumer goods and environmental health risks. Obviously, proper protection must be offered to genuine trade secrets and manufacturing know-how and we must honour past commitments where information has been given in confidence. However, it will be a key aim to make the process of regulation more transparent both to the public—in whose interest it is carried out—and to the industries affected, which have sometimes found regulatory requirements to be unclear or poorly explained.
Where there is a statutory right of access, there should be a right of appeal to an external authority on matters in dispute. The Government will be consulting further on whether new tribunals should be established to hear appeals arising from the two new access rights.
Fifthly, we have identified and listed in the White Paper the many statutory provisions that limit the ability of the Government to disclose information. Where those provisions run across the new access rights, provision can be made to set them aside. However, in the other cases we see no reason to revise the opinion of the Franks committee in 1972 that there is no contradiction between proper openness and the necessary protection of private information that has been entrusted to the state in confidence. Parliament has approved all those provisions,


often on the basis that protection of confidentiality was quid pro quo for some invasion of privacy. The majority of them should stand. In future, however, we shall consider the selective introduction of harm tests into those statutory offences.
Sixthly, and finally among the main White Paper proposals, I come to the review and release of public records. An invitation that I issued to historians last summer has produced useful suggestions, which have led to some significant publications. Examples of those and of records released as a result of other initiatives are listed in annex D to the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is releasing further papers today relating to the early history of intelligence operations.
A working party established by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recommended, and my noble and learned Friend has accepted, changes in the criteria for closing records, reductions in the periods of extended closure and the application of a harm test, which will mean that, in future, records will not be closed for longer than 30 years unless actual damage would be caused by their release. That will lead to a substantial increase in the material available to historians.
I think it relevant to mention to the House that, in addition to the six main proposals in the White Paper, the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee is reviewing the D notice procedure in order to modernise it and to make it more open. Parliament will be notified of the outcome of that review shortly.
I believe that the House will recognise that those proposals, taken together, lay down a sure and lasting foundation for more open public administration and government. They are a series of practical steps that meet the principal objectives of those who have advocated a full statutory freedom of information regime, without the legal complexities that that would entail. They do so while strengthening the role of Parliament in calling Ministers to account, rather than sidelining it. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by briefly acknowledging the work of Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, as well as the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Other hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are here today, have also put in much work to try to bring more openness into our system of government.
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on having, at last, after many months of tough negotiations with other Ministers, brought into the open a White Paper on open government. We have had to wait some time for it. When hon. Members have time to read the report, they will see that it is a well-researched, carefully documented account. Nevertheless, unfortunately, it epitomises exactly the qualities for which the Chancellor is gaining a reputation, and which we have just seen him demonstrate. There were a lot of nice words and good intentions, the statement was high on rhetoric, but, in the end, there was a deep failure to deliver the policy of open government that many Members want.
The fundamental flaw in the White Paper and the basic problem with it, which the Chancellor tried to skirt, is the fact that, in the end, it will be a Minister who decides what information is available to the public. I ask hon. Members to reflect on the fact that that Minister will be one of the

very Ministers who, in the past year, have refused to give information on the legal advice on Maastricht and the Matrix Churchill affair—the Minister who refused to put Lord Scott into the public domain, and refused to publish the accounts and records of the pits, the facts about the privatised prisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Asil Nadir."]—and Asil Nadir and political donations. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends are telling me, the list goes on and on.

Mr. David Shaw: Rubbish.

Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman may shout rubbish, but will he deny that the Scott inquiry was carried out in private? Will he deny that Asil Nadir's donations are not in the public domain? That is the deep problem with the report, and that is the reason why it is flawed. Ministers will decide what is released. That is why, sadly, the White Paper will be the epitaph to what will in the end be seen as a weak ministerial career.
Will the Chancellor confirm that, under the code of practice that he outlined today, which I readily acknowledge covers many of the right areas and includes many of the right exemptions—I welcome the test of exemptions—it will be Ministers who can refuse access to information in the first place? If people want to appeal, they will have to do so to the parliamentary ombudsman. Will the Minister confirm that that is the same ombudsman whose average response time to queries is now 13 months and 18 days?

Mr. David Nicholson: That is cheap.

Ms Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman had used the parliamentary ombudsman system, he would know that it is slow, bureaucratic and toothless.

Mr. David Nicholson: Even cheaper.

Ms Mowlam: To suggest that that will be the mechanism for appeals will not work—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about—

Madam Speaker: Order. I resent interventions from sedentary positions, especially when they continue, as in the case of the hon. Member.

Ms Mowlam: Will the Minister also confirm that a year ago he identified 200 Acts or other statutes that would be swept from the statute book? I remember the Prime Minister talking about the "cobwebs of secrecy" that would be removed when that happened. Will the Minister confirm that, ironically, as he has just told us, those 200 statutes cannot now be abolished, so they will remain? Three pages in the document argue with good All Souls logic why those statutes have to stay. In the end, they will stay.
Will the right hon. Gentleman further acknowledge that the real parentage of this White Paper is a 1979 Green Paper by Lord Callaghan, which contained exactly the same sections, section by section, covering a code of practice, tribunals and the ombudsman? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that, in terms of the past 14 years, the Government have just caught up with 1979 and have learnt nothing from the freedom of information legislation that has been practised over the past 10 years in Australia, New Zealand and Canada?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that whistle-blowers, who have been gagged by current legislation and are unable to disclose information when that is in the public interest, will still be subjected to criminal sanctions after the publication of his White Paper?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about individual rights in respect of health and safety. However, will he please tell me why that proposal cannot go back before 1991, as many people with disabilities and those who are terminally ill would like to see those historical health records? The same applies to the exemptions on immigration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
With regard to talking about the Government's commitment to open government, it is difficult to examine the details of the section on immigration, because it was only when I entered the Chamber at 3.30 pm that I was passed the White Paper. I received a copy of the Minister's statement 22 minutes before that. If that is an indication of open government, I should like to know what the Government's record is.
When the Minister replies, will he tell us why Opposition Members, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), are not allowed to visit scientific institutions in this country without a ministerial chaperon? That has just been confirmed by the Leader of the House. We cannot visit such institutions without a Minister being present.
Without substantive changes and without the kind of Right to Know Bill for which we have argued, and despite the many pages of rhetoric in the White Paper, ours will continue to be the most secretive Government in the western world.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady was almost as impressive on this subject as she was on science. When her colleagues greeted the science White Paper, they made such a pig's ear of it that even the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords took the opposite view. They have taken the precaution today of not asking for a statement in the House of Lords so that they do not fall into that trap again.
When the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has done her homework—which her colleagues tell me she very seldom does—she will find that she has made a fool of herself. I am absolutely happy to acknowledge that many of the ideas in this White Paper were also endorsed by the Labour party. I do not think that that is a weakness for my argument. I believe that it is a weakness in the hon. Lady's argument.
Let me remind the House of the last Labour Government's record on openness. In 1974, the Labour manifesto promised to increase openness and to replace the Official Secrets Act 1911. In 1975, the Queen's Speech promised to increase openness and to amend the Official Secrets Act. In 1976, the then Home Secretary promised to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act with an official information Act. In 1977, the Queen's Speech promised to increase openness and to replace the Official Secrets Act. In 1978, the Government published a White Paper—and so it went on until 1979. I could read out the rest, but Labour did absolutely nothing and the Opposition have no right whatsoever to talk on this subject.
The hon. Lady asked, more or less, a couple of questions. She asked about the speed of the ombudsman. She may like to know that in freedom of information regimes—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, (Mr. Fisher) will remember this, as it was at the Campaign for Freedom of Information's conference that Mr. Grace warned of it—the legislative route, or Freedom of Information Act route, is much slower than the ombudsman route. In Canada, it takes about two years, as Mr. Grace himself said.

Mr. Mark Fisher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I have the quotation with me. It is true that overseas regimes are much slower. I have already had discussions with the ombudsman, and it will be his objective to speed inquiries as much as he can, and that is right.
The hon. Lady said also that investigations of the statutes protecting privacy should be swept away. She cannot have thought about what she said. Is she really saying that statutes that protect privacy and make it a criminal offence to release private information should be swept away? Of course not. Lord Franks was perfectly right about that, and we have re-endorsed what he said.
There was very little else in what the hon. Lady said, except for her usual round of abuse about my college at Oxford, which obviously causes her to have a chip on her shoulder. I apologise for that. [Interruption.] She asked a question about retrospection; that is perfectly true. In relation to retrospection, we have taken the view that information given in good faith under one regime should not be released under another. It would be bad faith to release information when it was provided on the basis that it was going to be kept confidential. Most hon. Members, on reflection, would support that.

Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from the carping attitude of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), most hon. Members think that he has taken a larger step forward in this matter than any of his predecessors? Is not my right hon. Friend proposing that only when there are overwhelming reasons for it should information remain secret? Is not that a great step forward?
Is not it a further great step forward that the rights of the House are preserved, because the Parliamentary Commissioner will be taking a role and it will be left to an Officer of the House to decide whether a Department has behaved reasonably if it has refused access to a document in the described circumstances?
Will not the Parliamentary Commissioner criticise a Department for failing to produce a document, and will it not then be up to the relevant Committees of the House to decide whether his criticism is right? That is a great step forward, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The Parliamentary Commissioner will have the capacity to investigate whether the code has been properly followed. He will, as he does at present, have the right to say to Departments that he believes that it has not been followd and that they should put matters right. If a Department is so unwise as to resist him, he has the right to come to his all-party Committee and to the House.
Recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner have invariably been followed by Governments, and it is right that they should be. The case is strengthened further by the fact that, in a sense, the Parliamentary Commissioner has the redress in his own hands in that he has the information. We have discussed the issue with him and he has fairly said that he has always given a Department the first opportunity to put the matter right; that is fair.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman's statement confirms that he has decided not to introduce a freedom of information Act and, therefore, the right of recourse to the courts for freedom of information, as successive Labour and Conservative Governments have refused to do. However, his proposals are a step forward and they are welcome in that respect.
In the proposals for the implementation of the new code, the right hon. Gentleman places reliance on the ombudsman. Will he provide extra resources to speed the work of the ombudsman, who will have a whole new work load as result? Will he extend the ombudsman's investigative powers to include consumer groups, interest groups, lobbies and others who, in other countries, use freedom of information provision to campaign on behalf of people, or will he stick with the current provision that the ombudsman can take up cases only when there is loss to an individual? That would invalidate the ability of the legislation to allow Governments to be properly scrutinised by other bodies.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his fair recognition that this measure represents a major step forward. It is perfectly fair to say that there is a resource implication for the ombudsman's work. We made it clear in the White Paper that the additional work load must not damage the already large work load that he has, so he will have to have more resources.
Under the code, the ombudsman does not need to demonstrate that there has been loss to an individual. If the code has not been followed, that will be evidence that the person does not have his rights. That will enable the ombudsman to make a recommendation. It is not for me to say what the scope of the ombudsman is; that is for the all-party Select Committee. At present, I have no plans to recommend any widening of his scope.

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and urge him to disregard the remarks of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). I fear that she spoke without giving the matter her usual consideration. The statement does much to enhance the principle of open government. I certainly welcome the idea of a code of practice that will be closely supervised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Parliamentary Commissioner is not responsible to Ministers or the Government—he is responsible directly to Parliament. That is, he is responsible to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Select Committee—

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members want to put questions to the Minister. On these occasions, I often ask for one question and a brief exchange, and I insist on that now.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the right person to administer the code of practice? Will he ensure that all adequate resources are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner? As the Select Committee is likely to suggest enhanced powers, will my right hon. Friend support them when they come before the House?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, correctly reports the situation. The Parliamentary Commissioner is a servant of the House and it is not for the Government to lay down the law about how he should behave. He has said how he will take forward this new duty, which his present powers enable him to carry through. In William Reid, we are lucky to have a formidable Parliamentary Commissioner. I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and his Select Committee say in so far as it relates to the responsibilities of the Government, especially with regard to resources.

Mr. Giles Radice: The White Paper rightly identifies section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 as a barrier to openness. Why does not the White Paper recommend the abolition of that section, which was provided for in my Medicines Information Bill? That Bill was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Waldegrave: The reason, which is set out in the White Paper, is that we believe that there should be further openness in this area. However, we believe that this is a classic case where steps should be taken on a Europewide basis. As the hon. Gentleman knows, European legislation is in preparation. There would be dangers to the extremely important pharmaceutical industry in this country if we did not proceed on a Europewide basis.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in practice, it is hard to find the right balance between the ideal of freedom of information and chaotic government in which both Ministers and civil servants are reluctant to commit anything confidential to paper? I congratulate him on taking many steps forward to more open government in the White Paper that he has announced today, especially the two new statutory rights for individuals which seem to meet many of the objectives of those who wrote in to support the Right to Know Bill.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We have taken major steps forward. It was noticeable that the campaign of cards that were sent to many hon. Members—certainly to me—by the Campaign for Freedom of Information concentrated, understandably, on practical rights and acces that ordinary people want in their daily lives, especially with regard to health and safety. We are meeting those rights properly by statutory access and that will be welcomed by many of those people who lobbied hon. Members.

Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate the Chancellor on his ingenuity. He has taken the existing system as far as it can possibly go. He finds himself in the same position as the last Labour Government, who struggled mightily to prevent themselves from having to introduce a freedom of information Bill. They succeeded, and he has succeeded. I welcome some of his ingenuity and the increased powers for the Parliamentary Commissioner. Can he tell the House and


the country why, having come to the point at which the Government decided not to give a statutory right to know or to introduce a freedom of information Bill, he decided to do that?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. The one difference between this Government and the Labour Government is that they agonised for seven years and did nothing, whereas our Prime Minister pledged in our last manifesto to increase openness and we have done something about it a year later.
The argument for not taking a statutory route was set out by the Labour Government at the time. Opposition Members below the Gangway, who are stalwart upholders of the rights of this House, seem to be on my side in this matter. Their hon. Friends seem to be arguing for moving responsibility for key matters away from the House to judges. On the rare occasions when there will be conflict—I do not believe that there will be conflict often between the Parliamentary Commissioner's advice and the Departments—it will be on a serious matter. Do we really want to delegate those decisions to appointed judges? We would not avoid the politics by that; the political decisions would simply be taken by appointed judges rather than, ultimately, by the House. That is why we, like the Labour Government, believe that we need to increase information at the same time as enhancing the powers of the House.

Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend and his officials deserve warm congratulations on what has been a long march through the institutions. I particularly welcome the innovation in respect of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend remind those who are, rightly, concerned to make progress with this issue that, because openness in Government depends on everyday decisions by Ministers and officials, it is just as important to get a new culture and attitude in Whitehall as it is to create new rights and entitlements?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. In many ways, it would be much easier, putting aside the inevitable arguments about getting parliamentary time, to pass an Act and say that by creating that confrontation the problem is solved. That would not be the case. Let me quote again the advice given to the information commissioner. In talking about legal compunction, he said:
The power to compel means confrontation; it could put the information commissioner"—
in the Right to Know Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—
in a chronic state of war with government institutions and would inevitably result in the most narrow legalistic application of the law.
I believe that to be right. It is far better for the ombudsman to work with Departments and get them to improve their practices, as he has done on administrative procedures, while having in the background the power to compel them, if need be. That is much more likely to change the culture in Whitehall.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis—no, Bob Cryer. I call Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Skinner: I thought you said me, Madam Speaker. Hold on a minute. What is going on here?

Madam Speaker: Mr. Dennis Cryer means Mr. Bob Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: It is a very comradely arrangement—

Mr. Skinner: It is on this occasion.

Mr. Cryer: Will the proposals for a code of practice, as opposed to legislation, enable ordinary citizens to gain access to, for example, the secrets of installations such as Menwith Hill near Harrogate? For many years, concern has been expressed about that institution which has not had formal parliamentary approval. The Minister wants to give Parliament more power. Surely people have a right to know what is going on there, particularly now that any military justification, even by the Government's standards, has long since gone and especially as Menwith Hill is a spy on external, ordinary civilian telecommunications.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will understand that under my code, as under the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, proper national security will be protected. It should be protected. If information is requested and a refusal to give it is challenged, there will be an independent adjudicator, in the shape of the Parliamentary Commissioner, to assess whether the Department's decision has been fair.

Mr. David Nicholson: As a former civil servant, an occasional historian and a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced and greatly regret the unnecessary traducing of aspects of the Parliamentary Commissioner's work by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
In view of the concern of my constituents about such matters as organophosphorus sheep dips and the results of an important derailing of a train carrying noxious liquids some 18 months ago, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures he is proposing on health and safety will greatly help the right to know on those matters?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend should not worry too much about the hon. Member for Redcar. She always does that.
On health and safety, the new statutory right will provide the sort of legislative clout that is based on statute, because it is proper that it should. In the process of passing the statute, we may need to override some of the statutory bars to the release of information that are listed, which we could not do through a code, and they will help my hon. Friend with the questions that he raised.

Mr. John Garrett: If the Minister is so keen on open government, will he abolish the Osmotherley rules, which so severely restrict civil servants' ability to give evidence to Select Committees? Will he, his colleagues and their civil servants tell us the criteria for the privatisation of Government agencies?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no secret about the latter as those matters are debated widely. The Osmotherley rules cover the distinction between what it is right for civil servants to answer and what it is right for Ministers to


answer. The rules are broadly correct, but, from time to time, the Select Committee on which the hon. Member serves considers them and the guidance given to civil servants, and comments on them.

Mr. John Gorst: Apart from that information to which we have a statutory right and information that is classified for some reason of privacy or national security, what is the status of all the rest of the information that may be given voluntarily, or may have to be prised out of the civil service and Government by the ombudsman?
Furthermore, is it consistent with any sort of freedom of information that the great wisdom and experience of one Government should continue to be denied to their successor Government by the arrangements that exist, or will it be open to the ombudsman to say that some of the things that were done by the Government or their predecessor should be made available, if requested, by their successors?

Mr. Waldegrave: All the information laid down in the code belongs, by right, to those who want it. As I said in my original statement, however, the Government should not wait to be asked. We should improve the practice of initiating the publication of information on many subjects, as we are doing.
Advice given to Ministers by officials should be covered by privacy laws, and I think that all freedom of information regimes throughout the world cover it. I believe that the rule that Ministers of a successor Government cannot demand by right to see the previous Government's papers on those matters is correct. It would damage the openness and frankness between officials and Ministers if officials thought that they would constantly have to explain to a successor Minister why they argued in a particular way.

Mr. Fisher: It happens in the United States.

Mr. Waldegrave: That seems to me to be an extremely bad analogy, because in the United States large parts of the bureaucracy change with the Government, at great cost to good government there.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why should anybody take a blind bit of notice of this Tory Government when they talk about open government? We have just witnessed the Prime Minister refusing to answer a question that the Leader of the Opposition put to him three times and he has refused to give an answer about summat that is going to happen next Thursday. If they believe in open government, why do they not tell us where they get the money from for the Tory party—from all the sleazebags round the world? Why does the Minister not tell us the names of the eight Tory Members of Parliament who are in Asil Nadir's pocket? That is open government.

Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps one day the hon. Member will think up a really smart question to ask the Prime Minister, such as when he stopped beating his wife, and be cross when he refuses to answer.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication of the code of practice. I also thank him for his generosity in agreeing to meet me and to publish the criteria for the retention of official documents within Departments and their release by the Public Record Office. Can he confirm that, under the new

regime, the advisory committee that allows the Lord Chancellor to retain documents beyond the 30-year limit will now at least be allowed to read them?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The advisory committee, which advises the Lord Chancellor and is chaired by the Master of the Rolls, will have access to papers when there is a dispute. Disputes between Departments about releasing documents are rare, but arrangements are in hand to see how that can best be done so that access to documents will be available.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the Chancellor on the White Paper and many of the details in it. However, in responding for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was right to say that, although the White Paper is well argued and researched and the code of practice furthers the principles of open government well, in practice it will not make much difference, because it contains no means of enforcement.
The Chancellor rests on the ombudsman, but the ombudsman is slower. He rests on Mr. Grace, but everybody knows—and his own research shows—that Canada has the worst form of enforcement. Australia has a better system, with delivery of material in 30 days, as my Bill provides. The Chancellor knows that the ombudsman's present record is, as my hon. Friend said, 14 months and 18 days. What specific extra resources will he provide? Will he publish a target for response times for the ombudsman?
The White Paper's real weakness is that Ministers will continue to decide. That is the position now and nothing will change. Ministers will be in the dock for not releasing information and will be judge and jury in their own case. They have been hiding information consistently throughout last year.
We need a freedom of information Bill and we shall have one, as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and every other country have. The Government know that they have lost this argument this year. They are like King Canute. Having brought themselves to the brink of freedom of information with the White Paper, they have not the courage to jump in the water and accept that the game is up. We cannot be behind the rest of the world by not having freedom of information legislation any longer. I believe that the Conservative party will include freedom of information legislation in the next Tory party manifesto, but they will not have a chance to implement it because we shall be in government.
The British people want the right to know and they will get it. But the White Paper does not give people the right to know.

Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately for the hon. Member who is a real expert on the subject—unlike the hon. Member for Redcar—the Labour Government's record was outstandingly bad. When we measure progress under the two parties since the war, my party does much better. A famous example was quoted by a former Member of Parliament, Clement Freud, of the resounding minute written by the great Mr. Herbert Morrison saying that people had a right to know which he classified "secret". So that made little progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned timing. He said that the response time was 30 days and that is fair enough. We must have proper targets for Departments to respond.


That is not the comparison with the two years which Mr. Grace was talking about. Mr. Grace meant the time that it took for disputes to go through the courts. It does not take 30 days to settle court disputes in Australia.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this country is likely to produce a much faster procedure in the courts than Canada, with all respect to my noble and learned Friends, he is a little optimistic. The ombudsman is much more likely to act more swiftly. It will be cheaper for the citizen because there is no need to employ lawyers and others, who tend to waste a lot of money. I believe that the ombudsman has worked extremely well. His recommendations have been invariably accepted by Governments and he is the obvious enforcement agency to use.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week and a day or two beyond that. The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JULY—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JuLY—Opposition day (18th allotted day).
There will be a debate described as "The Threat of Government Policies to the Social Fabric and the Security of the Individual", on an Opposition motion.
Motions relating to immigration and asylum. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—Estimates day (first allotted day, second part). There will be a debate relating to domestic violence.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) order.
Motion on the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) measure.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the outstanding estimates for 1993–94.
THURSDAY 22 JULY—Subject to Royal Assent being signified to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, there will be a debate on a motion considering the question of adopting the protocol on social policy.
FRIDAY 23 JULY—There will be a debate on the environment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 26 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.
TUESDAY 27 JULY—Debates on the summer Adjournment. 
In view of what I have said about those last two days, the House will obviously wish me to say something about the contents of the motion for the Adjournment. Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Tuesday 27 July until Monday 18 October. The House may be also asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
I have already announced that the debate for Thursday 22 July is subject to the signifying of Royal Assent to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It may be helpful to the House to know that the Government motion for that debate would be
That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the protocol on social policy.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 21 July to consider European Community documents as follows:


Committee A, document No. 6654/93 on control of residues in meat; Committee B, document No. 9909/92 on human rights, democracy and development.

[Tuesday 20 July

Immigration and Asylum
1. Statement of changes in Immigration Rules ( HC 725)
2. Asylum Appeals ( Procedure) Rules ( SI 1661)
3. Immigration Appeals ( Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (SI 1662)
4. Immigration ( Restricted Right of Appeal Against Deportation) (Exemption) Order ( SI 1656)

Wednesday 21 July

Estimates Day

Class VIII, Vote 1, Police, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and other grants, England and Wales; Class VIII, Vote 3, Home Office Administration, Immigration, Probation and Police Support Services, England and Wales; Class IX. Vote 1, Lord Chancellor's Department: Administration of Justice: England and Wales; and Class IX, Vote 5, the Crown Prosecution Service: Administration, in so far as they related to Domestic Violence.

The Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93 (HC 245–1) and the Government reply to the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93 (CM 2269) are relevant.

Wednesday 21 July

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 6654/93, control of residues in meat; relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 79-xxxiv ( 1992–93).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9909/92, human rights, democracy and development co-operation: relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xviii (1992–93); HC 79-xxv (1992–93).]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Lord President of the Council will know that we have pressed on a number of occasions for a debate in Government time on the stocktaking exercise that was announced for Scotland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that the major part of those proposals was the offer of extra meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Is he aware that, despite an extra long Session, the Scottish Grand Committee has met less often than usual, rather than more? I understand from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland that we would normally expect two or three meetings at such a stage in the Session. It is said that the Secretary of State has issued instructions to cancel all the meetings scheduled before the summer recess. Is not that a betrayal of the undertakings given in the House and of the people of Scotland? Should not the Secretary of State therefore come to the House to answer for that decision, preferably in a debate in Government time?
Is the Lord President also aware that the Opposition are concerned about the somewhat last-minute switch of Friday's debate? We were hoping for and would still press for a debate on the affairs of London. There is also concern at the guillotining of the sole day's debate allowed for the Education Bill, to which, I understand, some 600 amendments have been tabled in another place.
The Leader of the House should be aware that it is our view that, first, it is not fair to the House to allow only one day with a guillotine motion to debate that number of amendments. Secondly, amendments on that scale and

scope do not suggest Government responsiveness to outside pressure, but either indecision in policy-making or incompetence in the execution of legislation.
I ask the Leader of the House to recognise that, although we all appreciate his statement that the Government's plans for the final week allow for some fluidity, we hope that he will accept that the House should be told officially by him if there are likely to be major votes in the final week.

Mr. Newton: I shall take the points in the order in which they were raised. On the Scottish stocktaking exercise, I understand that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) cancelled the meeting due this week with the Secretary of State to discuss strengthening the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Tom Clarke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Newton: I understand that the Opposition have repeatedly failed to take up all the opportunities available to them to debate issues in the Scottish Grand Committee. I note that there is some dispute about that from a sedentary position by the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly draw that and what the right hon. Lady has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The right hon. Lady asked about a debate on London. Her request left me slightly wondering whether I had inadvertently failed to announce the business for Friday 23 July. If I did, I shall put the matter right. There will be a debate on the environment, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That is the debate that the right hon. Lady had hoped would be on London. The Government have concluded that it would be more appropriate for it to be on the environment. It is fair to say that there will clearly be opportunities for matters concerned with London to be raised on a number of occasions of the kind that take place before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
The arrangements announced for the Education Bill are for the general convenience of the House. I believe that the time that we have allocated is adequate for consideration of the Lords amendments. It is our intention that the opportunity for discussion should extend to midnight rather than to 10 pm. to take account of the concerns that the right hon. Lady expressed.
The right hon. Lady asked whether there would be votes in the final week. She will be aware that the motion for the Adjournment can technically be voted on, as can the motion that paves the way for the Consolidated Fund debate. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be able to have some influence on the question whether such votes take place.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend be able to arrange an early debate on law and order issues, which are of great concern to my constituents and no doubt to the constituents of other hon. Members? Will he endeavour to ensure that such a debate takes into account the Government's announcements and the recent release of the Sheehy report? Will he ensure that law and order is shown as being at the top of the Government's priorities?

Mr. Newton: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's reasons for adverting to this extremely important subject. It was only a fortnight ago, in the immediate aftermath of


the Sheehy report, the royal commission report and the White Paper on the police, that the Government arranged for a full day's debate on law and order matters. However, the importance of the subject is such that I hope in due course to be able to provide further opportunities. My hon. Friend, whom I know to be an assiduous attender, may find an opportunity to raise the matter on the summer Adjournment, or he may wish to put in for a debate on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the possibility of a debate in Government time at the earliest opportunity on GATT? I understand that some progress was made at the G7 summit, but I know that there is a great deal of concern in textile communities and agricultural communities that there should be an early statement or debate on this very important subject.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that many share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of the subject, as the Government clearly do. It is difficult to see how to fit such a debate into the programme that I have announced. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman may wish to go on holiday as much as others do.

Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid any confusion about Thursday's business, can the Leader of the House confirm that, in the event of the House on Thursday approving an amendment that gives support to the social chapter, there will be an opportunity immediately thereafter, if the House so wishes, to vote down the motion as amended, and thereby to remove any commitment to or support for the social chapter?

Mr. Newton: It would be inappropriate for me to attempt to dictate the handling of the procedures of the House with you, Madam Speaker, sitting there with your eagle eye upon me. I will leave that matter to you.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 2317 on the siege of Sarajevo?
[That this House notes with grave concern that Sarajevo has been under siege for 15 months and that its people are living in atrocious conditions, including having to boil up sewage water for drinking water as there is no fuel to operate the pumps that could clean the water due to the Serb paramilitaries' refusal to allow United Nations fuel convoys through to the city; further notes that surgeons cannot wash their hands before performing operations, that the first cases of typhus have been reported and that the World Health Organisation is predicting imminent epidemics of typhus, dysentery and cholera; believes that the United Nations has the authority to lift the siege of Sarajevo; urges urgent action to lift the siege and save a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural community which has so far resisted ethnic division and which symbolises the values of the United Nations Charter; and welcomes the decision of the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly to hand in its appeal for action to lift the siege to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, at 10 am on 15 July, along with samples of untreated sewage water, as a reminder of the atrocious conditions in which the people of Sarajevo are forced to exist.]
Sarajevo is a multi-ethnic, multicultural mixed community which has been under siege for 15 months and

is now at the end of its tether. Water supplies have been cut off by Serbian paramilitaries, and there is a great danger of typhus and other epidemics spreading within the area.
Can we debate the situation in Sarajevo? Would the right hon. Gentleman like to drink the water that I have here in the Chamber, which is the sewage and untreated water presently being used in Sarajevo?

Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that the Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the critical humanitarian situation in Sarajevo and in other safe areas that have been established under UN Security Council resolution 836. It is deplorable that the parties involved in the conflict should withhold supplies of vital utilities. It is increasingly important that the early arrival of troops and equipments to implement the safe areas resolution should be secured. It is also important for Governments to step up their contributions to the humanitarian effort.

Mr. Simon Coombs: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just made a statement to the House on open government. In that statement, he went as far as he reasonably could down the road towards open government, without being sidetracked into the primrose path of ungovernability.
It would be wrong of me to suggest that the summer Session be extended any further than has been proposed, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful for the House to have an opportunity to debate freedom of information, as until now that opportunity has been given only to Standing Committee Members for a short time on one Friday earlier this month?

Mr. Newton: It would indeed be helpful, but it may be easier for me to be helpful later in the year, rather than next week.

Mr. Chris Mullin: When can we expect to have a debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice? Many hon. Members were surprised that there was not a statement from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There is widespread curiosity about the Government's plans for implementing some of the reforms that are proposed in the report. When can we expect a debate on the subject?

Mr. Newton: Not next week, Madam Speaker. However, there may be time during Home Office questions on Thursday 22 July to raise the matter. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should have thought that probably everybody would think it sensible for the Government to spend time studying the royal commission's report before rushing to conclusions.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early debate on early-day motion 2319, which deals with the subject of an energy tax as outlined in a recent edition of Labour Party News?
[This this House notes the discrepancy between the policy expressed in the House and elsewhere by the Leader of the Opposition, especially regarding VAT on domestic fuel, and the latest edition of Labour Party News which invites Labour Party members to consider shifting taxation from 'good things', such as income, towards bad things, such as 'resource depletion', specifically suggesting an energy tax


as one alternative; and calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to clarify his or his party's position by making a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.]
As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Mrs. Beckett) seems reluctant to use an Opposition day for a debate on the subject, will my right hon. Friend consider using a Government day?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the somewhat curious position of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends. They have made a good deal of noise about VAT, but have also made it clear that they are considering wide-ranging proposals for energy taxes.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the Leader of the House take note of the revelations on television and in newspapers this week about outdoor pursuit centres? Some of those centres are still taking on staff without checking their qualifications. Those members of staff are likely to undertake hazardous activity with children.
Will the right hon. Gentleman note that one of the centres concerned was the St. Alban's centre in Lyme Regis, which was involved in a tragedy in which four of my constituents lost their lives? In view of the deep and bitter anger that is felt by my constituents who lost their children in that tragedy, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of children will be undertaking such holidays in the next few weeks, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate that important matter?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find such time, despite the undoubted importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised—although he may be able to find his own opportunity to raise it on one of the occasions to which I have already referred. I shall of course ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with these matters.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that my constituents will be surprised that Parliament will not next week be holding a debate, at the request of the Opposition, to express pleasure at the fall in the unemployment figures? It seems that we are not to have a debate on the justice system, either. That, too, is surprising.
A music teacher's killer, who was high on drugs, who had been vandalising cars and threatening people in the neighbourhood, and who had a knife in his pocket, has not been found guilty of murder or of manslaughter and has been let off as a result of a clever legal plea of self-defence. Surely that constitutes a major problem, and Parliament should debate the justice system as early as possible.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, which is similar to one from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). Manifestly, I am not in a position to promise a full-scale debate next week. My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary has asked officials closely to examine the case to which he has referred to see whether there are lessons that can be learned. I am sure that the whole House supports such an examination.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Given today's statement on open government, will the Leader of the House arrange for his colleagues from the Department of Transport to make a statement on their policies of open

government, especially in the light of a letter that they sent me yesterday about the extension of the A550 and the public inquiry associated with it? They should explain why, in this era of open government, the public inquiry is not to be held in the area cut through by the road; it is to be held outside the constituency—indeed, in the country next door, Wales. The place where it is to be held is not even known to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—although I suspect that that may come up in the debate later this afternoon.

Mr. Newton: The safest course for me on this occasion is to draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday 26 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares to stay on that long—I might encourage him to go on holiday earlier—he might get an opportunity.

Mr. David Sumberg: My right hon. Friend will know of the concern in my constituency about the redrawing of the assisted areas map. Can he assure me that there will be a statement on that before we rise for the summer, and if possible next week?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will aim to make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity; but at the moment we are awaiting the European Commission's conclusions on the proposals that the British Government have put to it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Leader of the House already recognised the importance that hon. Members attach to the report of the Sheehy inquiry, could he arrange next week, or certainly before the House rises, to give us an idea of the legislative programme that will be followed in this context? Many Members will be discussing the matter with representatives of police forces during the summer recess, and it would be helpful to know whether there will be separate Scottish legislation, given the differences between Home Office and Scottish Office responsibilities.

Mr. Newton: The position on the Sheehy report is pretty much the same as that on the royal commission, about which I was asked earlier. It is not a report by the Government or a set of conclusions by the Government: it is a report which the Government and others need to consider.
As for the rest of her question, the hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that the Leader of the House does not anticipate the Gracious Speech in the autumn.

Mr. Stephen Day: Will it be possible at an early stage for the House to discuss the changes taking place in the Province of Northern Ireland, to allow us to debate the obvious abandonment of that Province by the Opposition, and the obvious failings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? In such a debate, we could also put in context the Government's efforts to defeat terrorism and repeat our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and to the union that it represents.

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is perhaps surprising that the Opposition have chosen to use their Opposition day next week to discuss the subject that I read out, rather than the extremely important signs that


have been given about a major change in their policy towards Northern Ireland, which would call into question the whole constitutional basis of the arrangements.

Mr. Richard Burden: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, this morning, the West Midlands regional health authority decided that the Department of Health has no moral obligation to the pensioners of Qa Business Services. Will he arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to explain why it is felt that there is a moral obligation to give £10,000 to a discredited chairman of a regional health authority, yet pay nothing to people who have lost their security in their old age as a result of a bungled privatisation?

Mr. Newton: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that question.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the statement on the Defence White Paper a few days ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that he would make a separate statement concerning the procurement of tanks for future British Army requirements. As there will be several opportunities for export sales of the Challenger 2 tank—opportunities that would be much enhanced by an early and positive statement, which would benefit greatly my constituents and the industrial infrastructure in Leeds—will my right hon. Friend see whether such a statement could be made as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Newton: I shall brief my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is due to be here on Tuesday, on at least one of the questions that he may be asked.

Mr. John Gunnell: As the Leader of the House has already suggested that the Home Secretary will want to give time to debate the Runciman report, will he be willing to bring forward for discussion, with particular urgency, the recommendation for a criminal cases review authority?
Just as many hon. Members share the concerns of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) about the case that has occurred recently, it is also true that there are many instances where people are in prison and have maintained their innocence over several years. There is an urgent need for an authority to be set up, preferably with its own independent investigating officers.

Mr. Newton: I shall take that as a clear sign of support for one of the recommendations, but I do not want to add to what I said earlier about it being right for the Government to consider the report before jumping to conclusions.

Dr. Liam Fox: While I acknowledge the response that my right hon. Friend gave to an earlier question, will he reconsider, for the sake of the minority parties, the decision to hold an urgent debate for a day on law and order, as only one of the Liberal Democrats managed to attend the last such debate? Perhaps that would give them a chance to reassess the importance that they attach to the issue.

Mr. Newton: That is a helpful question. I note that it has been heard by the Liberal Chief Whip, who will no doubt ensure better attendance on a future occasion.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate next week on the White Paper that the Government published on Tuesday about Sunday trading? Is he aware that the House should at least have had a statement from the Home Secretary on their complex document? Those who support one particular option would like to know why the Government are dictating to the House the terms of the option that any organisation may wish to offer regarding employment protection. The Government are under an obligation to present the House with a statement so that they can qualify on what grounds they are dictating the options that will be presented to the House.

Mr. Newton: My understanding is that there is no question whatever of the Government trying to dictate to anybody. There has been some difficulty in getting sufficient details of proposals from some quarters to turn them into the form in which they have appeared in the White Paper. As to the question of an early debate, the whole purpose of publishing the document at this time was to give all Members of the House a good opportunity to study the whole range of options and think about the issues before we debate them in detail later in the year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will it be appropriate in the Adjournment debate on the environment on Friday to discuss carbon taxes and their role in preserving the environment? If it will be, could my right hon. Friend arrange to have copies of "Costing the Earth", "Looking to the Future" and the Labour and Liberal manifestos available in the Vote Office, so that people can look at those documents and their contribution to the debate on carbon taxes, particularly as the Liberal Democrats' manifesto called for a larger than VAT tax on energy, with the money so raised being used to reduce the VAT scales on luxury items?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly a matter for next week.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some good points. I am not sure whether it would be proper for me to make the documents available, but I shall do everything I can to ensure that as many people as possible are made further aware of them, together with some other recent documents about an energy tax published by the Labour party. My hon. Friend makes a good point about next week's business, in that it would seem to me that there is a jolly good chance that it would be in order to consider such matters in the debate on the environment.

Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Employment has not taken the opportunity to make an announcement about the future of May day. There are three possible reasons for that: first, he intends to make an announcement in the recess, when it cannot be subject to scrutiny; secondly, he will make an announcement in the autumn, which will cause considerable inconvenience to the leisure trade and to the printing industry, which will be preparing diaries and calendars; thirdly, he has realised that the whole idea is a load of dogmatic nonsense and is trying to get rid of it.


Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement and clarify the matter?

Mr. Newton: I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the hon. Gentleman's engaging speculations. All that I can say is that an announcement on those matters will be made in due course.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 2100 and my amendment to it?
[That this House condemns the heavy-handed and bullying methods employed by GrandMet in its manoeuvres against the Morning Advertiser's campaign on behalf of Inntrepreneur tenants; notes that the Agriculture Select Committee believed that the Government's policy towards the brewing industry has done nothing to help tenants whilst the six giant breweries have increased their market share by five per cent. to 82 per cent. since the introduction of the Beer Orders; believes that the issues raised by the Morning Advertiser report of 21st May call in question both the fair trading policy of Her Majesty's Government and the actual working practices of GrandMet; and calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to instigate and immediate inquiry into the state of the brewing and licensed trade before more tenants are forced out of business.]
It refers to the bully-boy tactics of Inntrepreneur Estates, the unacceptable face of the brewing industry, which is charging exorbitant rents, driving people into bankruptcy and causing disturbances in an industry whose problems were supposed to be solved after the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Despite the fact that the brewers distribute largesse to Conservative party funds, can we have a statement from a Trade and Industry Minister on what will be done to help the tenants and the consumers of the brewery industry's products?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can ask that question directly of Trade and Industry Ministers, with luck, on Wednesday 21 July.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement and a debate next week on local government reorganisation in Wales? On I March, the Secretary of State for Wales announced proposals for reorganisation, only for hon. Members to find yesterday, in the Welsh Grand Committee, that large chunks of these proposals had been ripped out and new ones put in. That is an affront to democracy, particularly as Parliament will have no opportunity to scrutinise the White Paper before the Bill is produced in October. That is a disgrace, and the Secretary of State should make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise either a debate or a statement, but the organisation of parliamentary questions next week is turning out rather well, because the Secretary of State for Wales is here on Monday.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when we have our debate on open government, it will include consideration of the procedures used in the House to correct untruthful parliamentary answers received by hon. Members?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that today I received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces telling me that information given to me last month—that British soldiers in the Gulf were warned of the danger of depleted uranium shells—was completely untrue? Is it not right that, when untrue answers are given, they are corrected in Hansard with a supplementary answer and not given to individual Members in a private letter?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has clearly found a way to draw attention to the letter that he received. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to that point.

Mr. Cryer: Can I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 2315, headed "Questions of procedure for Ministers"?
[That this House notes that section 107 of the Rules for Ministers says 'Ministers must resign any directorships they hold when they take up office' and is concerned to note that in recent company returns Viscount Cranbourne is a director of Stalbury Trustees, which is devoted to the promotion of conservative principles; further notes that the honourable Member for Conwy is a director of Professional Secretarial Services Ltd., that the honourable Member for Richmond and Barnes is a director of Sheridon-Hanley Enterprises Ltd., and that the honourable Member for Suffolk South is a director of Aracol Holdings Ltd., a subsidiary of which has principally been engaged in security dealing; and calls on the Prime Minister to investigate these breaches of Ministerial rules and publish his conclusions.]
Does the right hod. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister published that document? Therefore, breaches of rule 107 by four Ministers—there are more—holding directorships should be answered by the Prime Minister in a statement. It is no good publishing the rules for Ministers if they are to be breached behind closed doors. There should be accountability to the House to demonstrate that Ministers are not breaching the rules. The companies listed have nothing to do with Ministers' family estates.

Mr. Newton: I understand that, in all the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the companies are wholly concerned with private family financial affairs. The Ministers concerned are satisfied that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public duties. In those circumstances, there would appear to be nothing further to investigate.

Points of Order

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Questions to the Leader of the House are an important moment in the parliamentary week and one that Back-Bench Members treasure because it gives them access to a discussion of the subjects that are to be debated next week. Increasingly, that time is being used by some hon. Members to ask the Leader of the House to comment on party political points. That is a derogation of the rights of hon. Members and does neither the Government nor individual Conservative Members any credit.

Madam Speaker: That gives me an opportunity to remind the House that business questions should relate to the business next week. Far too many hon. Members go into great detail, making long comments about personal and constituency cases. It is an important period in our proceedings and I hope that hon. Members will take to heart the fact that they should ask questions relating directly to the business for the next week. They should be put briskly and directly to the Lord President, who, I am sure, will do his best to give short replies.

Summer Adjournment Debate

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 26 July.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 21 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Orders of the Day — Welsh Language Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair.]

New clause 1

OFFICIAL STATUS OF THE WELSH LANGUAGE (No. I)

That the official status of the Welsh language shall be not less than the official status of English in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales.'.—[Mr. Morgan]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 2—Official status of the Welsh language ( No. 2)—
'(1) For the avoidance of doubt, the Welsh language shall be regarded as having official status in the conduct of official or public business and in the administration of justice in Wales and shall be treated on a basis of equality with the English language in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Official or public business for the purposes of this Act means business conducted in Wales or with persons resident in Wales by the Crown and by public bodies as defined in section 6 of this Act.'.

New clause 8—National status of the Welsh language—
'As the national language of Wales, the Welsh language shall be regarded, along with the English language, as an official language of Wales for the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, as defined by this Act, and both languages shall be treated on a basis of equality.'.

New clause 9—Official status within Wales of the Welsh language for European Community purposes—
'For the avoidance of doubt, in matters relating to which the European Community institutions may have jurisdiction, the Welsh and English languages shall be regarded as official languages in Wales and both languages shall be treated on a basis of equality.'.

Mr. Morgan: With new clause 1, we come to what, by common consent, is the moment of truth for the Bill. It has been a long time getting to Report stage as we are the second House to deal with it, so the Government have had many opportunities to fulfil their promises to be a listening Government and to be conscious of the fact that the Conservatives are in a minority in Wales. When the Minister gives his final comments on the Government's opinion on the issue of official status and the Welsh Language Bill, he will have something constructive to say.
The Minister is probably as aware as any other hon. Member that, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have promised that, at the next stage or the stage after, they will have considered the objections made to the omission of reference to official status. There is no longer a next stage. Today is the day. Report is the penultimate stage, with only Third Reading to come. This is the last opportunity that the Government have—I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has arrived for the moment of truth—to convert this Bill into what it says in


its title. It says that it is the Welsh Language Bill, but unfortunately what we actually have is a Welsh language quango Bill—what might be called a quango for the lingo. We want it to be a genuine Welsh Language Bill, not a Bill simply about setting up another quango.
When people in Wales hear that the Government have it in mind to set up another quango, they say, "Lord save us from another quango; do not create it, cremate it; cremate it before you create it"—or whatever their phrase might be. They are deeply suspicious about the Bill. It is all very well to have a Welsh Language Board, but there has to be a context within which it can operate, or Parliament is simply washing its hands of issues relating to the Welsh language and passing them on to a nominated body.
We are therefore worried that the title of this Bill is a misnomer. It is rather like the incident in the 13th century—I am sure that some of the historians on the Back Benches will correct me if necessary—when Edward II told the Welsh princes that he was going to create a Prince of Wales who did not speak a word of English. They thought that he intended to choose one of them for the job, but he produced a babe in arms who did not speak any language at all.
In presenting the House with a Welsh Language Bill, but not giving it a legal context within which to work in relation to aims, objectives, goals, status and rights, the Government have left the quango completely dependent on definitions of common sense, and all being good chaps and understanding roughly what the Government want in terms of doing something, but not going too far, not pressurising people too much, not spending too much money, and not conferring rights, which would be inconvenient. It is all far too reliant on what has been referred to elsewhere as the good chap theory of government. It is not our job as legislators to leave it to the good chaps, with the occasional statutory woman, perhaps, on the quango. Our job is to write good, tight, comprehensive, well-thought-out, long-lasting legislation and this is the last opportunity that we in this place will have to make sure that the legislation does last.
Our new clause 1 is based on what we believe to be a compromise between new clause 2, which contains a declaratory statement about official status for the language, and the Government's use of the verbal device of the Welsh language being treated on a basis of equality. We are acting in the spirit of trying to meet the Government halfway and hope that the Government will respond by trying to meet us halfway.
It sounded as though there had been no further movement on the Government's part—but there may have been further consideration since then—in the exchanges between the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday. They were not promising at all, but we are hopeful that, if this Report stage is to have a meaning and is not some sort of charade, the Government have the ability and the freedom to consider what we shall be saying this afternoon. They have had two further days now to think about what the consequences will be if they completely reject any idea of linking the Bill with some form of official status.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Has he noticed that, during the last two or three days, the Government have had representations from Beata

Brookes, chairperson of the Consumer Council, urging official status, and from the Archbishop of Wales, numerous members of the other place, and different denominations of churches and chapels in Wales? The will of Wales on this matter has been quite clearly declared. Is not it time that the Government listened to Wales rather than their own advisers?

Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more. I believe that the Government would like to be judge and jury in their own house because they won the election, but judges and juries in Wales have been pressing on them very strongly the idea that official status must be a part of the Bill if it is to have any meaning. The Government must show some humility with respect to their weak political position in Wales and their lack of democratic sanction for what they are doing. That is not to say that we expect them suddenly to resign over the issue, but they should recognise that they are not the majority party, or anything like it, and never have been since the secret ballot was introduced. They must be conscious, therefore, of who can, roughly speaking, say that they represent feelings in Wales, and not ride roughshod over the feelings expressed by people who can claim majority representation in Wales.
We are very concerned that the Welsh Language Board, in the absence of a reference to official status, will be working in a vacuum. There is a difference between
on a basis of equality
and
that the official status of the Welsh language shall be not less than the official status of English.
This amendment attempts to meet the objection that the Government have already mentioned in the other place and at different stages in this House: that the Bill might open up a legal Pandora's box and legal cases for years to come. Obviously, the Secretary of State is something of an expert on Pandora's boxes after his efforts on local government yesterday. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government must be conscious that, when they do things in relation to the Welsh language, they must not act like a colonial governor-general.
We are not criticising the Government's lack of generosity in financial terms to the Welsh language. We can see from the Government's expenditure plans that they hand out a considerable amount of money to Welsh language organisations. They can boast about it in their mauve-coloured book. They can say that the Urdd Gobaith Cymru—the Welsh youth movement—gets so many hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, the Welsh Books Council gets a subsidy, the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin—the Welsh nursery schools movement—gets a subsidy, and the National Eisteddfod gets £360,000, but these are all handouts.
The age of the handout and the quango is considered very demeaning in Wales. People in Wales want rights, not handouts. There is always the thought of Secretaries of State, and even Ministers of State, who are from Wales—which makes a change—calling up the tribal chieftains, as it were, in their grass skirts and carrying their spears, and saying that they can have a collection of Gideon bibles, beads, and so on, but they cannot have rights; the natives must be kept quiet, but they are not to be given rights, although we will give them £150,000 for this and £250,000 for that.
It can be said that, except in the context of a Welsh Language Bill, the Government do not have an opportunity to confer rights on people. They are in the


handout business each year when they are looking at the budget for the Welsh Books Council, and so on, but we have an opportunity now with the Welsh Language Bill before us. That is why it is important to confer these rights on the Welsh language, the speakers of the Welsh language, and those who may not be Welsh-speaking themselves, but want their children to be educated in Welsh, as a matter of right.
The Government have probably not, so far, understood the importance of the Welsh language to Welsh identity. They are probably misunderstanding the nature of the union of the United Kingdom, which this Parliament represents, and the difference between Scottish and the Welsh circumstances.
The Scottish Acts of Union were not based on absorption; they were based on allowing the Scottish people to retain all their separate legal, administrative, educational and religious separateness, and their separate identity, because it was a relatively voluntary arrangement. The Welsh Acts of Union were not voluntary at all; they were based on the principle of absorption.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: No. We absorbed the English.

Mr. Morgan: Well, it may be possible to make out a case on one historic reading, but there was no doubt where the power lay, as distinct from where the office lay—although I do not want to go into the remarks of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer on the difference between being in office and being in power now, because that would be a very considerable diversion.
Wales did not have—except in relation to markets ouverts and, later on, Sunday drinking—any separate legal, administrative or educational structures; and, until the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, it had no separate religious structures either. So the only thing that prevented the complete absorption of Wales into England, until the arrival, possibly, of international rugby and football matches between Wales and England in the 1870s, was the language.
In the preservation of Welsh identity in the 17th and 18th centuries, and most of the 19th, the language performed the function provided in Scotland by its separate administrative, educational and religious structures. We did not have that; our language was all that we had to prevent our being absorbed. That is why it is so important to appreciate the extent to which—even for those who do not speak Welsh—the language defines Welsh identity. Most people in Wales secure their national identity either by supporting Welsh rugby, soccer or other sports teams, or by speaking Welsh. 
5 pm
I do not think that that point has been fully appreciated, especially by Conservative Members who are not Welsh. I remember when Billy Boston opened the Welsh Sports Hall of Fame in Cardiff. In the introduction to the ceremony, his wonderful rugby league career was described: it was said that he was the biggest rugby league scorer ever and had made more appearances in cup finals for Wigan and won more Great Britain caps in matches played against Australia than anyone else in the history of the game. When asked to say a few words, he said, "Yes, but I would have given all that up if I could only have won

a cap for Wales." Every grown man present was suddenly in floods of tears. To Billy Boston, gaining a Welsh identity would have meant putting on the red jersey of Wales. Before 1880, it was not possible to play rugby league for Wales because it did not yet exist in any significant sense; in those days, the language linked people with their roots and gave them the identity about which the Scots do not need to worry.
New clause 1 is critical. It refers to "official status", but in not making it declaratory we have attempted to meet the Government's objections. We believe that it also covers the point about reciprocity of European Community legislation. Those wishing to sell Welsh goods on the continent, and to list ingredients and the like in Welsh, would have the right to do so. They would have the right to put Welsh lava bread in bijou little containers and have it sold in delicatessens on the Champs Elysees, Unter-den-Linden or the Via Venezia, listing all the ingredients in Welsh, just as Greek ouzo is now sold in Queen street or St. Mary's street in Cardiff.
The Government refer to "a basis of equality" in the Bill, but make no reference to official status. New clause 2 goes much further, including a declaratory statement with regard to official status—although it also defines and confines it in a way that I hope to discuss later. We have a few bob staked on new clause 2, but we basically believe that the Government should meet us half way by dispensing with the weasel words
"a basisof " 
I have mentioned the importance of the Welsh language to Welsh identity and the importance of official status in repairing the damage done to the language—not only by the Acts of Union, but by the introduction of universal primary education exclusively in English in the 1870s and 1880s. That period marked the beginning of the numerical decline of the language from its peak in the 1880s and the start of the inexorable westward march of the English-Welsh dividing line across industrial south Wales. At roughly that time, it began in the eastern valleys of Monmouthshire; more or less every decade another valley has been picked off. Now, in the 1990s, the battle lines—although that may not be an appropriate term—for the future of the language have reached the Tawe and Swansea valleys and, to an extent, the Neath valley.
The language continues to decline in one sense. There has been an apparent slowing down of that decline, caused by the number of children between the ages of three and 15 attending Welsh schools. However, if we ignore that age group, we find that, between 1981 and 1991, the decline in the census was very sharp. There was a fall of some seven percentage points in the number of people outside the school age group who spoke Welsh; the position was therefore rather artificial. The fear that the westward march of the English language across industrial south Wales will continue into the year 2000 is very damaging.
The fact that informal official status has been given to the Welsh language by administrative action and devolution to Wales is a purely coincidental by-product of the rise to political importance of Lloyd George, the United Kingdom's only Welsh Prime Minister, and the arrival of Tom Jones as the United Kingdom's only Welsh Cabinet Secretary in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. From that arose the concept of public business with which the Bill deals.
It was fortunate, perhaps, that in its early days the BBC was headed by a Scot, who was reasonably sympathetic towards matters Celtic. There were some counteracting


forces in the public world. Nevertheless, even as late as the 1960s, the average person bringing up children in Wales probably thought it preferable for his children not to learn Welsh if they were to get on in life. That phrase was continually heard among the common people. Perhaps the middle classes picked up the idea first from the gradual re-establishment of Welsh in the world of education and the expansion of the university system, which placed some emphasis on the language.
Gradually, the world of public business achieved a turnround in the status of the Welsh language and over the past 20 or 30 years people have thought about whether they want their children to be brought up speaking Welsh. However, it has been purely an informal process. Some of the residual damage done by the Acts of Union and the use of the Welsh knot to extirpate the language after the introduction of primary education on a universal and English-only basis in the 1870s is still present. Over the generations, fewer families have been Welsh-speaking and thus able to bring up their children as Welsh speakers.
The Bill can act as the culmination of a gradual turnround that has been taking place since shortly after the first world war. The Government's attitude to the Welsh language has been converted: rather than trying to uproot it, on the basis that it was bad for everyone in Wales to speak Welsh—that it held them back from economic expansion—they have gradually perceived that that approach constitutes a denial of rights, identity and people's connection with their historic roots.
The Government are introducing a Welsh Language Bill, but they have made no reference to what it seeks to achieve. As I have said, we want it to represent the culmination of the process that I have described. We believe that the Government should not only cease to try to uproot the language and get rid of it altogether, but confer official status on it to right the wrongs of the period' between the 16th and 19th centuries.
The Secretary of State is gradually learning about matters Welsh. He experienced a great conversion on the road to St. Mellons in regard to unmarried mothers: indeed, he thinks that he may be the first person to speak about the matter publicly in Wales. Strangely enough, however, the main attempt to uproot the language was made by commissioners appointed by the House in the 1840s. The House was extremely worried about the Rebecca and Merthyr riots and about the Chartists; so three commissioners were sent to try to work out what was wrong with the Welsh.
The commissioners said that there were two things wrong with the Welsh: they kept having babies without marrying and they spoke Welsh. I must tell the Secretary of State that the St. Mellons estate had not been built at that time. The commissioners arrived in Wales knowing nothing about it and believing that there was something seriously wrong with the Welsh—largely because they could not understand them and because their habits did not seem to meet the standards of Balliol or Wokingham.
The Bill provides an opportunity to remedy that damage and repression. I commend new clause I to the House.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall be brief because I am anxious not to take time from hon. Members whose names are appended to the new clauses, and I wish only to make a point of principle in relation to those clauses.
The Bill starts with a preamble, as do all measures. But any lawyer who is used to addressing courts on the meaning of statutes knows that it is rarely appropriate, and even more rarely helpful, to address the court on the preamble. The substance of any Act of Parliament is contained in the text, not in the preamble.
When examining a Bill of this kind, one looks to clause I for the principle underlying the measure. What are the people being told? Parliament speaks to the people of Wales by the way it acts in the measure. The message that clause l sends to the people of Wales is that there shall be established a Welsh Language Board.
The establishment of that body has been welcomed. It has already done some excellent work, work which in some ways surpasses the excellence of the Bill. The creation of a statutory Welsh Language Board is at least equally welcome, but the people of Wales will not be satisfied with the creation of such a board and the consequent legal framework as an end in itself.
We have few opportunities to create for Wales legislation which is as specific and momentous as this. So let us not run away from this opportunity to do something momentous for Wales. Many people in Wales are speaking Welsh fluently, many children from non-Welsh speaking homes are learning to speak Welsh fluently and many youngsters who have perhaps learnt Welsh at school and not at home have become fluent speakers. They are ambitious, not to leave but to stay in Wales.
We should recognise those achievements by giving Welsh a status that is not a vague statement in the preamble to the Bill but is recognised in the first clause as setting out the aspiration of the measure and the determination of Parliament to provide something new and momentous for the people of Wales.
There could be no better way to achieve that than by giving Welsh its true and proper official status as an equal language in Wales in all official respects. I have read with care all the reasons that have been given for preferring the phrase "equal validity" and leaving it in the preamble, compared with giving the Welsh language enacted official status in the body of the measure.
The reasons given for that preference seem to be distilled into an assertion that there may be legal problems and that it may do nothing more than provide work for lawyers. Perhaps I should declare my interest as a lawyer practising in Wales. I have done that for the last 21 years. I am proud of that achievement—[Interruption.]—and I answer the catcalls by saying that, in a sense, I have been doing it for part of this week. I make no apology for fulfilling public duty in Wales in the courts earlier this week. Indeed, there are other Welsh lawyers in the House today who fulfil public duties in Wales of a similar nature, and there are others who would probably like to do so.
We in Parliament should not be afraid to take the occasional risk of doing something bold which might mean the Government, the Welsh Language Board or some other public body finding itself the subject of an application for judicial review because it is not putting into effect the terms of the Act, as the measure will become. Without the availability of judicial review, by which citizens of Wales can establish that the status of the Welsh language has been sustained, what will the Bill really be worth?
5.15 pm
I do not demur from the view that goodwill for the Welsh language is the subject of attempted expression in the Bill. I do not say that the Government have acted out of bad faith. I simply suggest that by running away from the declaration of official status for Welsh-—I much prefer new clauses 2 and 8 to new clause l—the Government are running away from the aspirations of the people of Wales.

Mr. Roger Evans: If Welsh had official status under new clause l, what, as a matter of law, would that mean? Would it mean that anybody—however few people in a constituency spoke Welsh; only 2 per cent. of my constituents say that they speak Welsh—could insist that community councils or local authorities must conduct their business in Welsh and publish their records, minutes and reports in Welsh? That would seem to be the inevitable general universal application of the type of argument and drafting that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Carlile: The simple answer to that question is no. There is nothing in the new clauses which would lay down a requirement that the sort of extreme action to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have to be taken. I agree that it would be absurd for a community council in his constituency, in which 2 per cent. of the population speak Welsh as their first language, to have to publish minutes in the Welsh language. Indeed, in my constituency some community councils would find it extremely difficult to publish minutes in the Welsh language.
That is beside the point. We are not speaking of a requirement that every document should be in the Welsh language. To insist on that would be a patent absurdity. We are talking about the status of the Welsh language, and the Government should recognise that the only way to enable the aspirations of the people of Wales to be met by the Bill is to include that declaration of official status.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I need not delay the House because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) covered most aspects of Welsh history relating to the matters that we are discussing.
New clause l takes a minimalist approach. It is an attempt to draw the Government beyond the statement in the preamble. They should find our proposal acceptable because it provides a way to give definition to the official status of the Welsh language in Wales alongside that of English.
Some weeks ago, the Welsh Language Board wrote to hon. Members pointing out that for the new board and its chairman to be effective, the Welsh language should have official status in Wales. More recently, to my surprise, the former Member of the European Parliament for North Wales, Beata Brookes, came out strongly in favour of the Welsh language having official status. I am sure that she is well known to Conservative Members. I imagine that, privately, she will have forcibly told them her views.
I shall read one sentence from her letter, as chairwoman of the Welsh Consumer Council, to remind Conservative Members of the views of that redoubtable lady. She wrote:
But unless the Welsh language is given official status, the ability of the Board to give real support to the language will be seriously undermined".
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take full account of her words.
My constituent who was the chairman of the Welsh Language Board and who recommended that it should have official status was unable to continue as chairman of the board. I do not know whether it was because the Government did not offer him the job or whether he did not wish to continue, but whatever the circumstances, there is no doubt that, given his view that it was essential for the Welsh language to have official status, he could not continue as chairman because that was not the will of the Government.
I hope today that the Government will at least accept new clause 1. I hope that they will accept new clause 2 as well, but let us hope that, on the ground of accepting a minimal compromise solution, they will accept new clause 1.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We are as much concerned with the status of the Welsh language as we are with the establishment of the Welsh Language Board. The feeling in Wales is that without a solution to the former, the latter will be an incomplete vehicle which will be hampered from the very beginning in the object for which it was set up.
New clause 2, to which I speak, is of immense practical importance as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has said. It is of even greater psychological importance.
Time and again on Second Reading, in Committee and in debates in the other place, the Government's view has been that a declaration of official status for the language would somehow open up a legal can of worms or an administrative Pandora's box.
The Welsh Office view is best described as excessive legal caution. Time and again we are told that the lawyers have come out against a declaration, saying that the language already enjoys official status in Wales. However, if that is true, why can we not encapsulate it in legislation so that there can be no doubt whatsoever?
The noble Earl Ferrers, on several occasions in the other place, referred to the need to clarify the position of the language and this is a great opportunity so to do. He said:
The concept of Welsh being an official language raises similar concepts of definition and uncertainty. It is the Government view that whatever uncertainty there may have been in the past concerning the official language of Welsh, it should be removed by the Bill."—[official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 1993; Vol. 542, c. 152.]
In reality, there is no lack of clarity. The Welsh speaker in Wales is a second class citizen in his or her own country and the amendment tries to address that. Failure to embody a declaration of status, even in the simplest terms, will merely perpetuate that unacceptable position. Worse still, it will defeat the object of the Bill.
The noble lord Lord Williams said in the other place that all the good in the rest of the Bill will be lost without a declaration of status. He said that there were many helpful measures in the Bill and I add my voice to that. I am not here to be a full-time critic, but without a declaration of status it will be an empty Bill.
The noble lord Lord Hooson said that it is necessary to have a declaration of this kind within the Act to make it totally acceptable and I shall return to that in a few minutes.
The Welsh Language Board has stated its clear view that a declaration is vital. The board took the view it


should have been encapsulated in the long title. That could and should have been provided for; what is more, it could have been drafted without any problem whatsoever.
Since the some what turbulent passage of the Bill through the House, the immediate past chairman of the Welsh Language Board, Mr. John Elfed Jones, a man whose obvious virtues are held in high regard by many in the Chamber and elsewhere, has expressed his opinion. On a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said somewhat mischievously that Mr. John Elfed Jones had done more for the language than Mr. Saunders Lewis.
I shall not debase the debate by pursuing that point, but it typifies the Government's esteem for Mr. John Elfed Jones who wrote to the Standing Committee on 18 June saying that, if the Bill omitted to include a declaration of status, the arguing and the tension in Wales would persist. Furthermore, and all-importantly, he said that the work of the board would be hampered ab initio and he spoke with the authority of having chaired the board.
When I raised that important point with the Minister of State, I received a sarcastic comment from him to the effect that anything that that gentleman says is unacceptable to the Government. He went on to say, with a smile on his face, that the comment was made ex cathedra, referring to the fact that that gentleman had left his post. However, ex cathedra, in cathedra, in chapel or anywhere else, thousands of people in Wales agree with the past chairman of the board that there must be a declaration of status embodied in the Bill. By failing to make such a declaration after decades of waiting and agonising delay, the Government will fail the people of Wales.
I have frequently said that I welcome the fact that the debates were not characterised by political point scoring. More importantly, the language was not sullied by such a scenario, but it should be asked whether it is acceptable for the Government in Westminster to deny the Welsh people. In any event, they have no mandate to rule Wales. They packed the Standing Committee with parachutists from England, people who went there to read their correspondence, who knew nothing about the Welsh language and cared even less. We had to argue our case against that brick wall. The Welsh language is our most valuable asset and we have to continue arguing against that dumb opposition.
My amendment in favour of Welsh jury trials was lost on the casting vote of the Chair. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), somewhat uncharacteristically, sided with the Government. The cards were yet again stacked against the Welsh people. I deeply regret that I, who live my life through the medium of the Welsh language, have to plead, here in London, for the very existence of my own language. I am dismayed and angry about it.
In the past few weeks, many eminent people have been writing to No. 10. They include judges, academics, bishops and the Archbishop himself, pleading with the Government to think again. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the matter with the Prime Minister who said in his usual bumbling way that the language had an official status but no doubt we will be denied that in statute today.
Even the Government's most ardent supporter and apologist, Miss Beata Brookes, the chairwoman of the Welsh Consumer Council and of the Conservative party

for Wales, wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members on 12 July. Her letter has been referred to, but it is important none the less. It states:
unless the Welsh langugage is given official status, the ability of the Board to give real support to the language will be seriously undermined. The Welsh Consumer Council has consistently argued, in its response to Fforwm Iaith's Strategy and the Welsh Language Bill, that there needs to be"—

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on an official status for the Welsh language in Wales. Has he had the opportunity to ask his fellow party member, who now holds a distinguished position of power and influence in this matter, whether he intends to treat Welsh as though it has official status in Wales?

Mr. Llwyd: I am aware that the person concerned—Lord Elis Thomas—is within the confines of the House at this moment. I sincerely hope that he hears the pleas of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. Had any hon. Members on the Conservative Benches any regard for the language, there would be pleas from them also. I have no doubt that Lord Elis Thomas will take into account what has been said today.
Has the Minister accepted the view of many eminent people in Wales? There is no doubt that English is, de facto, an official language in Wales. It runs through every piece of legislation, going back over centuries. Because of that, the Welsh language has been treated as inferior. We now have an opportunity to put that right. Failure to do so will be to fail the people of Wales.
On past occasions, I have referred to the wealth of good will in Wales towards the language and the large number of people each year who seek to learn it. I applaud and welcome that. I also applaud the fact that many of those who have moved to Wales recognise the need to nurture the language and its culture. They are aware of the great value that attaches to the language.
When the Bill was first presented, there was a consensus. It did not meet with any vociferous opposition because we all accepted that there was good will behind it. For reasons that I have already explained, the language was not treated as a political football because a consensus was reached on the implicit understanding that the Government would table numerous strengthening amendments. Where are they? Last December we were told, "Don't worry—it is not what you want, but it will be strengthened." Now, after a great deal of debate, not one of the 70 or more amendments tabled by the Opposition parties has been accepted by the Government. That is a said indictment of the 'Government and of their real intention.
The Minister said that he would strengthen the Bill—have we all been duped?

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend could also ask whether the members of the Welsh Language Board have been duped. They were on the point of resigning last December, and would have resigned were it not for the Minister's promise that the Bill would be strengthened. Were they duped, too? Has everybody been duped at every stage simply to pass a Bill that does not give the Welsh language the rights to which it is entitled'?

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which are heartfelt across the party divide. 
Because not a single amendment was accepted by the Government, they have driven a coach and horses through the welcome consensus that they enjoyed when the Bill was first presented. Not only has the consensus in the Chamber disappeared, but in Wales the mood is one of anger, betrayal and exasperation. Many societies feel that their reasoned arguments have been dispatched without consideration or comment.
We have presented the Minister with numerous amendments dealing with the official status of the Welsh language. Some of them were designed to meet his objection that granting official status would militate against the language's perceived status in other legislation. Some amendments were designed to meet the opposite view, which he also gave us, that the wording covered too broad an application. Some amendments were drafted by eminent lawyers in Wales. They have knowledge of the everyday working of the language in Wales and of the various pieces of legislation. It was all to no avail.
The issue is important not just in this Chamber and in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. We will soon again be considering the Maastricht Bill; the Government must be wondering what that has in store for them. They have yet to ratify the charter on minority languages. In Committee, we were told that they were still considering it. I do not understand why they have had to take nine months to do so. I sincerely hope that that consideration will come to fruition before too long. If it does not and if the new clause fails, the language will not be official and neither will it have the protection of a minority language in Europe. It will be denied support from both this Chamber and the European Chamber. The Irish language has been recognised as an official language in Europe and it will receive European assistance. Whatever the outcome of our sad proceedings tonight, I hope that the Government will again consider the charter, without further hopeless prevarication.
The retired archdruid of Wales, Dr. William George—a person whose views I hold in great regard—said about the Bill that half a loaf is better than no bread. On this occasion, I must disagree with him. The half loaf is stale and it will not provide sustenance to the Welsh language. If the new clause does not succeed, history will record that a truly golden opportunity has been missed, to the great sadness of hon. Members and the people of Wales.
Some months ago, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg and other societies urged me to vote down the Bill at the first opportunity. I said that as a Member representing a Welsh constituency, my job was to try to strengthen the Bill. I reminded them that, last Christmas, the Minister had said that it would be strengthened. It was because I was confident of that that I told them that I would not vote against it.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Does not the hon. Gentleman regard the amendments that we have made to the Bill—21 in all—as strengthening it? Have not we strengthened it by what we have said about written evidence, about charities and by our changes to company legislation? I resent some of the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

Mr. Llwyd: Those amendments concern the minutiae of the Bill. I agree that the changes to company law, those

relating to charities and the changes to one or two other words are welcome. However, the core issue is that for centuries the Welsh language has been treated as inferior, yet nothing in the Bill deals with that problem. I do not deny that there have been some cosmetic changes, one or two of them quite substantial—but by and large the important amendments dealing with the core issue have been ignored by the Government. [Interruption.] It appears that those of us who live and work in Wales do not know as much about Wales as those who live and work across the border. That is what they think and it saddens me.
If the new clause is not successful, it will be a betrayal of the people of Wales and a denial of their legitimate aspirations. The Government will be directly responsible for any divisiveness and disharmony. I urge hon. Members to vote for the new clause.

Mr. Roger Evans: What does new clause 1 as drafted mean? Does the phrase "official status" carry any legal practical weight whatever? If it does, it is dangerous, general and universal, and undermines the good will behind the Bill. If it is simply window dressing, what is the point of putting it in, except as a symbol? I respect the need for a symbol, but perhaps it would have been better to have put a grand statement in the preface, as Henry VIII's advisers would no doubt have done.

Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to me, but I tried to make the explanation fairly explicit. One short example is the fact that Welsh is currently denied any assistance from the European sphere. That is one aspect that the hon. Gentleman may like to ponder.

Mr. Evans: The effect in Europe is not clear. If the phrase had any meaning, the immediate practical effect of the amendment and others like it would be that, instead of a system that has been most carefully devised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, with piecemeal schemes where they are appropriate and reasonably practical in the circumstances, we should have a general, universal rule that had to be applied equally in all circumstances.
I am prepared to listen to and even to accept the argument that there is something to be said for putting something suitably Welsh and passionate into the preamble to address the point that has been made—although it is now too late to do so. However, I object strongly to the corruption of the statute book by grandiloquent, general, American-sounding statements such as "the pursuit of happiness", which are legally imprecise and which will undoubtedly lead to litigation.
I am not satisfied by the answer given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) when I asked him what more we should have than we have at present if Welsh were to have a statutory official status. Would an individual citizen in Wales be entitled to have a document addressed to him in Welsh? Would he be entitled to have the committee minutes of my community council given to him in Welsh? What does the phrase mean? If the amendments were accepted, such decisions would have to be taken by the High Court, not by an expert body such as the Welsh Language Board.
My right hon. Friend has devised a scheme whereby the needs of every part of Wales would be covered. The Bill is a monumental historical achievement. It is undoubtedly the best thing that has happened to the Welsh language for


half a millennium and it is deeply saddening that an imaginative, effective Bill, well drafted to promote good will in Wales, should be so unfairly belittled.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I shall not detain the House too long, because I know that many Members wish to speak and there is a lot of business to conduct on the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) told us, Lord Ferrers said in the other place:
Welsh already enjoys official status"—[Official Report. House of Lords, 25 February 1993; Vol. 543, c. 347.]
If that is the case, and if that is the Government's view, is it too naive to expect them to state the fact in the Bill? I do not believe so. That status should be declared in the Bill.
It has been argued that that is not necessary, because the fact that Welsh is an official language is implicitly recognised in other statutes. However, the Bill must be the right place in which duly to recognise the statutory position of the Welsh language. If the legislation had been considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, as it should have been according to the rules of the House, the Welsh language would have been given official status and the Bill would have been stronger. It would have been considered by Members from Wales and there would have been more Members in the Chamber tonight. As we see, the Conservative Members who do not represent seats in Wales and yet were on the Committee have not chosen to come here tonight. Presumably they have decided to deal with their mail somewhere else.
The Bill should promote the greater use of the language, which would promote its development and give it equal validity with English in the life of Wales. We have heard many quotations tonight, but here is another, from the Welsh Language Board:
Equal validity for the Welsh and English languages in Wales is a prerequisite for a fair society. Any status for the Welsh language that falls short of this is demeaning".
It demeans the Welsh language.
We have already heard some history tonight. Welsh is the oldest language in the United Kingdom. The Gododdin, the oldest Welsh document, dates from the 9th century, I believe, so Welsh is considerably older than the English that is known and used in the House today.
The Government's policies will once again fail the people of Wales unless the principle of official status for Welsh is incorporated in the Bill. That is a fundamental request and if it were granted it would give the Welsh language new life and vigour. The Welsh Language Board put the position succinctly in paragraph 36 of its recommendations for a new Welsh Language Act:
Unless it be declared by an Act of Parliament that the Welsh language shall have equality of status with the English language it will continue in its existing state of inequality. It is therefore imperative that Parliament uses this opportunity to right some wrongs of the past and to provide the Welsh language with the status it deserves".
If our new clause is not accepted, an historic opportunity to right 450 years of wrong done to the language will have been missed.
Unlike the hon. Member of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, I shall not oppose Third Reading, if only on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread. I agree that the half loaf is probably stale, but at least it is something. It is a shame that we shall have only that stale half loaf and not a whole loaf for the people of Wales.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I shall be brief, not only because what I wanted to say has been said already, but because of my deep reverence for the Whips. I heard what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said about the Welsh Language Board being duped and his extremely passionate denunciation. I hope that he will have a brief word with Lord Elis Thomas and ask him to consider his position.
The key difference between the two sides of the House is that the Government have clearly failed to understand the importance of symbolism for the language. New clause 1 offers them an olive branch and a way out. We do not know what "official status" and "a basis of equality" mean precisely, but whatever they mean we want Welsh to have the same status as English. I am not sure whether there is a Welsh word for "me too-ism". My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) suggests "fi hefyd-ism". If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Bill has been received in Wales with a deep disappointment, felt most by those who are most committed to the future of the Welsh language—those who have campaigned long and hard to bring about such a Bill, and without whom the Bill would never have been introduced.
The disappointment springs first from the total failure to establish in the Bill rights of any kind—crucially, perhaps, the right to receive education through the medium of the Welsh language. The second disappointment is the failure to make an unequivocal declaration of official and equal status. There is talk about
the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
However, that statement is ambiguous and the ambiguity is compounded by phrases such as,
so far as is appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
The principle is hedged about by all kinds of conditions, so it is both ambiguous and limited in scope. As we shall no doubt hear later, there is no reference to the privatised utilities and other such organisations.
Campaigners for the Welsh language have seen a language Act not simply as a kind of totem, nor even as a symbol, but as a necessary basis for a practical process and for the restoration of the Welsh language to its proper position in the life of Wales. That is what the campaign for a Welsh Language Act has been all about. To use current jargon, the campaign has been designed to set in motion a process that some people call the reversal of language shift. That means bringing about an ever-wider knowledge and use of the Welsh language in Wales. The Welsh language has been undergoing the contrary process to that for the past century.
Reversing language shift is no mean task. It is a serious business and is difficult to achieve, although not impossible. It is a major task that requires a great deal of understanding and much commitment of resources. Whether or not that task is undertaken, how seriously it is attempted and its prospects of success depend on the good will of one person—the Secretary of State for Wales, whoever he or she may be at the time. That is deeply


unsatisfactory. In the absence of the establishment of rights and of an unequivocal declaration of official status, my colleagues and I find it impossible to support the Bill.
Despite what I have said so far, I am prepared to concede that those who drafted the Bill, and in particular the Minister of State, seem to have been well intentioned. Theoretically, through the mechanism of the schemes, much could be achieved on certain conditions. What are the conditions which must be fulfilled? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I am entitled to say what I want to say and I am trying to do that. I believe that I am saying something that has not been said before.
What are the conditions which must be fulfilled to ensure that the schemes' mechanism delivers something? The membership of the board must be determined on the basis of a commitment to, and an understanding of, the needs of the Welsh language. It must be based on that and not merely on acceptability to the Government of the day. The board's professional staff should have commitment, application, knowledge and ability. The board must be adequately resourced to fulfil its extraordinarily broad remit. It must be adequately staffed to carry out the complex procedures of dealing with the schemes with expedition to provide momentum to the process of increasing knowledge and use of the language. Momentum is all-important at this stage. At the end of the day, the legislation and the board should have the backing of the Secretary of State.
If those conditions are met, the Bill might provide the means to strengthen the position of the Welsh language. In addition, the Bill might create a new political context within which voluntary campaigning and action on behalf of the Welsh language could flourish.
If those conditions are not fulfilled—and that is what we fear—there will be disenchantment and frustration. We have no doubt about which of those two scenarios we want to be fulfilled. That is why we are so disappointed at the failure to establish rights and incorporate a statement on the principle of status. We want the positive scenario to reign in relation to the Welsh language in Wales.
The irony is that the nature of the Bill that has emerged, and the success that may attend it, depend on the political will of the Government of the day in London. If I may say so, that places a heavy responsibility on that Government.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have been accused of excessive legal caution. I have been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to take a risk. I have been told by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I am not concerned about symbolism. I must remind the House that we are legislating. It is all very well to include something in a Bill which gives us a great glow of satisfaction, but it may not actually mean anything.
Let me be quite clear. The Government start from the simple premise that the Welsh language already enjoys "official status" and can therefore be said to be an official language in Wales. That is, of course, what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Wyn Roberts: While the Bill serves to confirm the status which the language enjoys, it is not the intention of the Bill to confer that status on the language—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should contain themselves and listen to the Minister. This is an important subject and hon. Members want to listen to the Minister.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I was saying that this immediately gives rise to one of my concerns with some of the general declarations of status that have been proposed in the new clauses. If the purpose of the Bill is seen to be to confer "official status" upon the Welsh language, it follows that the language does not currently enjoy that status. The Government's view is that it does.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way now?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I believe that that ignores the current reality and would lessen the status of the language in matters not covered by schemes. That is the acid test and one of the criteria that we have applied to the new clauses.
The other criterion which, as I explained in Committee, we have applied to the proposals on this matter was that amendments on status should not have the effect of including in the Bill a general declaration of uncertain effect which could be interpreted only by the courts. The amendments should not include a provision which could be interpreted as corresponding to statutory bilingualism and they should not constrain the status of the language so as to be entirely dependent upon measures provided for in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was quite right to ask about the meaning of the phrase "official status". He is well aware of the point that I am making. The inclusion of that phrase would have an uncertain effect and lead to confusion. We do not require the inclusion of the phrase "official status" in the Bill to empower the board to perform its function which is already covered by other clauses.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister said that there is doubt about the meaning of the term "official status". Only a few moments ago, he said that Welsh has official status. He cannot have it both ways. There may be doubts about the meaning of the "basis of equality", but he includes that in the Bill although it is open to interpretation.
A case in the European courts involving a Dutch citizen and the Irish Government related to whether the Irish language was recognised as an official language within Ireland. Unless the Welsh language is recognised in law as having official status within Wales, we are open to similar cases being taken in the European courts. This matter must be cleared up now in the context of the Bill. If it is not cleared up tonight, it should be cleared up in the other place when the Bill finally returns there.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The official status of the language in Europe can arise only from the unanimous agreement of the European Council. It does not depend on there being a legal declaration of status in domestic law in this country. I could tell the hon. Gentleman much about the situation in Europe because I have examined it most


carefully. Passage of the Bill and its recognition of the Welsh language and its official status could be extremely helpful to the Welsh language in Europe.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Welsh language now has official status in Wales, whatever that might strictly mean. Is not his fear that, if it is written into the statute, it will become an official language of the United Kingdom? Is not that the difference?

6 pm

Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday—namely, that Welsh is an official language in this country. That does not have to be stated in law. It is not stated in law in respect of English. English is also an official language.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman said something interesting in answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Does the Minister say that Welsh is an official language in the United Kingdom, or does he say that it is an official language merely in Wales? There seems to be great confusion about that and, of itself, that confusion is surely evidence for defining status clearly in the Bill.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that Welsh is an official language. The hon. and learned Gentleman should read what my right hon. Friend and I have said.

Mr. Llwyd: If, as the Minister says, Welsh is an official language, surely his answer to me about the minority charter should have been that we cannot ratify it because it is an official language.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused about the status of the European charter. We are still considering whether we should subscribe to it and take further steps. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we meet all the requirements of that charter in respect of Welsh.
I have considered the new clauses very carefully. They do not meet our requirements and they do not meet the criteria that I have set out. The inclusion of any of the new clauses would be contrary to the preamble of the Bill and they would certainly not provide a proper basis for the Welsh Language Board to pursue its function of promoting and facilitating use of the Welsh language.

Mr. Morgan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister should be aware that what he said about not wishing to express noble declaratory sentiments is in absolute contrast with what the Secretary of State said yesterday about local government. The Secretary of State said that we must legislate in a way that resonates with the people and agrees with the people's sentiments in respect of local government reform. The same applies on Thursdays as applies on Wednesdays. One cannot enunciate a principle one day and deny it the following day.
In the main, the Minister addressed objections to the declaratory statements which characterise new clause 2. He barely addressed new clause I, which would align the status of the Welsh language by way of official status in Wales with the de facto and de jure status of the English

language. The right hon. Gentleman shuffled papers and accepted interventions in a way that I have never seen him do before. He criticised the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for being in a state of confusion. Perhaps the confusion is among Conservative Members. Perhaps the Minister has lost a battle that might have gone to Cabinet.
A Bill which merely transfers from the Welsh Office to the new Welsh Language Board the right to hand out lollipops to the National Eisteddfod and the Welsh Books Council will not satisfy the demands of the people of Wales. The Government must recognise that. Therefore, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 173.

Division No. 335]
[6.05 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashton, Joe
Hutton, John


Barnes, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Jamieson, David


Benton, Joe
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Betts, Clive
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Boyce, Jimmy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Byers, Stephen
Jowell, Tessa


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Khabra, Piara S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Kirkwood, Archy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lewis, Terry


Clapham, Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Llwyd, Elfyn


Connarty, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum


Cryer, Bob
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cummings, John
McNamara, Kevin


Dafis, Cynog
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mandelson, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dowd, Jim
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Enright, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Etherington, Bill
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Godsiff, Roger
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gordon, Mildred
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gunnell, John
Rendel, David


Hain, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Hall, Mike
Rowlands, Ted


Hanson, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hendron, Dr Joe
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Heppell, John
Simpson, Alan


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hoey, Kate
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wise, Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. John Spellar and


Watson, Mike
Mr. Ray Powell.


Wicks, Malcolm





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Harris, David


Alexander, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Hawksley, Warren


Amess, David
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hendry, Charles


Ashby, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Atkins, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Horam, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Baldry, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bates, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hunter, Andrew


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jack, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jopling. Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Key, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Kilfedder, Sir James


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cash, William
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Legg, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Congdon, David
Lidington, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew


Dover, Den
McLoughlin, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Dykes, Hugh
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Eggar, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Merchant, Piers


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Milligan, Stephen


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Patnick, Irvine


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Pickles, Eric


French, Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gale, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Gallie, Phil
Rathbone, Tim


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Richards, Rod


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Riddick, Graham


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hague, William
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)





Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Stephen, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sweeney, Walter



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Michael Brown.


Thomason, Roy

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION (WELSH LANGUAGE)

'.—(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with subsection (3) below, the Board, after having consulted the Secretary of State, shall appoint a Commissioner, to be known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Welsh Language).

(2) The Commissioner shall be appointed within twelve months from the date on which the Board is established.

(3) The Commissioner may investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a public body in respect of the preparation or carrying out of a scheme, in any case where—

(a) a written complaint is duly made to a member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken; and
(b) the complaint is referred to the Commissioner, with the consent of the person who made it, by a member of that House with a request to conduct an investigation thereon.

(4) The Commissioner may exercise the powers to conduct investigations, call for evidence and issue reports referred to in sections 7 to 10 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

(5) The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he may determine, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers and conditions of service.

(6) The Commissioner and his staff shall receive such remuneration, travelling and other allowances, and pension entitlements as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.'.—[Mr. Alan W. Williams].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause provides for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Welsh language matters—that is, an ombudsman specifically for Welsh language matters.
In Committee, we discussed at some length the complaints procedure in clauses 17 to 20. When there is a complaint against the operations of the Welsh Language Board, the board is required to set up an investigation. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd


Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the procedure may be inadequate. An amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru called for a judicial review procedure if the Welsh Language Board is not receptive to a complainant.
Under the new clause, the Welsh Language Board could take over such complaints. It would require the board, once established, to initiate discussions with the Welsh Office for the establishment of an ombudsman on language matters within 12 months of the language board being set up. That ombudsman would be a neutral referee, as we are used to in local government affairs.
When the ombudsman service was introduced, it was a novelty to British administration, but, over the years, it has earned the tremendous respect of the general public and local authorities. It is unbiased, thorough and fearless. Generally, when recommendations are made, the ombudsman recommends fair solutions to, and reasonable settlements for, all problems.
In the correspondence that we received before the Bill was introduced, the Welsh Language Forum pointed out the need for a neutral arbiter. The forum proposed a Bwrdd Cymodi Ieithyddol. That is a language reconciliation board. The Welsh Consumer Council in its submission to us elaborated in detail on the need for an independent complaints procedure. In January 1993, all Welsh Members received a briefing on the Bill from the council. In paragraph 9 it says of the language board:
We argued that an organisation set up `to promote and protect' the Welsh language could not also provide a complaints and conciliation service.
The council then recommends an ombudsman to handle complaints. It further states:
The positive handling of complaints and prejudice is an extremely difficult matter. Proper complaints procedures are central to consumer rights.
The one cannot exist without the other. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need for a neutral arbiter.
Complainants can come from both sides of the fence. An individual may not be able to get a particular service in Welsh and may find that the Welsh Language Board is deaf to complaints. The complaint could be about a scheme devised by a public body not being sufficiently rigorous in a particular district, or the complaint could relate to employment.
There is the danger of employment discrimination if a public body is over-zealous in insisting on Welsh speaking being a requirement for too many jobs. The Bill establishes the Welsh Language Board to promote the language—very properly. A complainant on one side of the fence would not expect justice from such a board.
At present, the Race Relations Act 1976 is the only vehicle for complaints. Later, under a new clause, we shall discuss the inappropriateness of that Act. Its use it not liked by the people of Wales.
The Labour party document before the last election, entitled "The Better Way for the Welsh Language",states:
Labour believes that the Race Relations Act is not an ideal mechanism for dealing with abuses in this field.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I have been trying to understand the new clause. My hon. Friend raises the issue of people seeking employment complaining of discrimination because they do not speak Welsh. Many jobs in public bodies in Wales require Welsh. That prevents a large number of people—90 per cent. of my constituents—from annlying. How would they act under this procedure?
I am not saying that I am against positive discrimination. It must exist to solve the problems of history, but how would my constituents act and what would the ombudsman do? Would he say that there had been an offence against the law or would he provide a conciliation and arbitration service? I find it difficult to see the mechanics under which this will operate.

Mr. Williams: The issue is complicated and, obviously, there are strong emotions on both sides. The Bill makes frequent use of the words "reasonably practicable" and "appropriate in the circumstances". What are the accurate definitions of those terms? There must be a pragmatic definition. The situation in the Rhondda will be different from that in Cardiff, Dyfed or Gwynedd. We need some sort of referee to ensure that the interpretation of those terms is fair to English speakers and Welsh speakers in particular communities. I acknowledge that there are dangers. I tabled the new clause in an attempt to deal with the complex problem of employment discrimination.
I would expect there to be more individual complaints about an inadequate service in Welsh than from the other side of the fence. As I said earlier, the Labour party recognised the problem before the last election and suggested in its policy document the establishment of an ombudsman.
All Opposition Members want a much stronger language Bill than the Government have presented. We believe strongly in the principle of equality for the Welsh language and a status for it no less than that of English in Wales. At the same time, we want the legislation to be fairly administered to both Welsh and English speakers. The Bill simply embeds a complaints procedure in the Welsh Language Board. It does not provide a neutral arbiter. We need an ombudsman to whom to refer complaints.

Sir Wyn Roberts: It may be helpful if I explain how the Government see the relationship between the Welsh Language Board and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the local government ombudsman and the health service commissioner.
Schedule 1 makes it clear that the board will be an organisation whose activities may be the subject of an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. The commissioner will be able to investigate complaints of maladministration made against the board. The existence of the board may influence the way in which the commissioner investigates complaints of maladministration made against other public bodies that come within his jurisdiction, which concern the use of the Welsh language.
To the extent that such cases involve the operation of Welsh language schemes under the Bill, we envisage that the commissioner and the board would have to reach agreement on the extent to which they would expect the machinery that we are providing for the board to investigate complaints to have been used before the commissioner decides to investigate. That would be a matter for the commissioner to decide in the light of individual cases.
We would expect similar considerations to apply to the bodies that come within the purview of the local government ombudsman and the national health service commissioner. The Bill provides a means of redress for individuals who believe that they have been disadvantaged by the operation of a scheme.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister mentioned two public areas: health and local government. He has said that the ombudsman has a right to look into problems of discrimination. Often when we refer a case to the ombudsman he says that it is outside his purview. Would the local government ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or whoever be able to take up employment issues in relation to the national museum of Wales, the Wales tourist board or any other organisation that may say that Welsh is compulsory as a condition of employment? Would not the ombudsman come back on that?
In this case, would it not be better to accept the new clause for a separate ombudsman who could then deal with this specific problem? One of the big issues is that if the case goes back to the board, which becomes an arbiter, it must be partial in promoting the language. That would be wrong.

Sir Wyn Roberts: May we leave the problem of employment until we discuss a later clause?
In the first instance, ombudsmen are concerned about maladministration, rather than the specific subjects to which we have referred. I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) understands what I have said about the relationship between the complaints procedure under the board and the procedure that could arise because the board will be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The schemes may also involve either the local government ombudsman or the national health service commissioner.
We envisage that the ombudsman would expect the board's complaints procedure to have been exercised before agreeing to mount an investigation. Those matters will also be determined by agreement between the ombudsman and the board.
The board will, therefore, have a distinct role, which is analogous to that of the existing ombudsmen but complementary to both. Nothing in the legislation will limit the locus of the existing ombudsmen. In particular, nothing in the Bill expressly prevents the ombudsmen from investigating complaints of maladministration involving the Welsh language.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I believe that one of the reasons why the new clause was tabled is vividly illustrated by an example that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). He mentioned a school in Carmarthenshire in which science was taught entirely in English, but the authority imposed a Welsh language qualification on the job of laboratory technician. What redress would a person seeking that post, and finding himself discriminated against on grounds of language, have under the system that the Minister describes?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I should have thought that the system did not apply to such an example. Ombudsmen are concerned about maladministration. If there has been maladministration, there is a role for the ombudsman, but he has to be shown that it has occurred or that there is a prima facie case. Given what I have said about how we would expect the system of investigating complaints to operate, we would not gain anything by the introduction

of yet another commissioner, as provided for in new clause 3. I regret, therefore, that I cannot support the introduction of the new clause.

Mr. Rogers: I did not intend to speak on new clause 3 because my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) put the arguments well. However, I have listened to what the Minister said about the narrow range of complaints with which a commissioner can deal—as is the case with the present ombudsmen. I think that it ought to be incumbent on the Minister to come up with some form of alternative—if not now, certainly later.
The crux of the argument about the development of the Welsh language is that one can spend all the money and resources in the world, but, without the good will of the English-speaking population in Wales, the language will not be developed as many of us want. When those of us who come from areas where the majority of people speak English developed our policies on Welsh language education in schools, we had to convince many English-speaking communities of the value of spending resources on the Welsh language. Gradually, that view has become more accepted.
The Welsh language will develop only if hostility is not produced. We do not want people to say, "Our schools are falling down; classroom resources are not available for English-speaking children, but Welsh-speaking children, or people being taught in the medium of Welsh, can have those resources." It would be awful if there were a conflict in the community.
The same principle applies to jobs. When English-speaking people find that they cannot get jobs because they cannot speak Welsh—let us not forget that we are talking about at least 80 to 90 per cent. of the population—hostility towards the language will build up, which none of us wants. It will also create an exclusive class of people who get preference as a result of speaking Welsh—as it already has in certain parts of Wales, especially in public organisations—which creates a great deal of hostility.
What will the Welsh Language Board do in that situation? If complaints are made to the board and it has to be partial and make judgments, the basis of good will for the board will disappear. One side or the other will gain or lose. There will be a few contentious cases and the press will whip it up as a good story. Before one knows it, the issue of the Welsh language will again become a football to be kicked around.
Frankly, the Government have rejected the new clause without thinking through the issue. The Minister should have said, "Yes, the arguments are valid; the answers may not be ideal, but we shall consider the subject and come back with something." That is the proper way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will accept my criticism constructively, and realise the potential for damage to the language that will exist unless there is a reasonable forum for complaining and sorting out issues without their becoming a source of conflict.

Mr. Rowlands: One of the unresolved questions in Committee was the extent to which the new language board would be a major instrument of positive discrimination in favour of the Welsh language. We asked that question over and over again and will come to it again later. There are huge legislative blanks in the Bill, which unfortunately do not allow us to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is describing to the House.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has put his finger on it. That question has been considered by hon. Members who had the privilege to sit on the Standing Committee. Some of us were not able to do so, but the Minister must take note of what we say.
The Secretary of State can dream up policies on his feet, responding to the winds in whichever direction they blow. The Minister might find that difficult, but I appeal to him to suggest an alternative way of approaching the problem when the Bill comes back from the Lords.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank the Minister for his comments. When Hansard is published I shall study them carefully, but I do not think that it is enough for there to be discussions between the commissioner and the language board about the potential problems. That is a behind-the-scenes dialogue and, in the last analysis, power to investigate complaints will rest with the language board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) highlighted the fact that there is a void in the law for people making complaints. They can have recourse only to the Race Relations Act 1976, which is an unfortunate piece of legislation to use in that context. So, in the spirit of the comments made by my hon. Friend, I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully, perhaps come up with a more carefully worked-out solution in the Lords, and will find a way to accept the new clause.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Bill is all about establishing good will and trying to remove many of the difficulties that we have experienced in the past. The board set up under the Bill will deal with many sensitive areas where it must exercise a great deal of caution. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned some of those sensitive areas.
However, clauses 17 and 18 provide for a procedure for conducting investigations, and investigations could also arise in the context of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the local government ombudsman and the national health ombudsman. Moreover, in the event of disagreement, people will have a right to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have, therefore, covered most complaints.
I remind the House that the Bill's entire purpose is to sustain good will, eliminate obstacles and induce as much harmony as possible into the language issue.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5

RIGHT TO HAVE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WHOLLY THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH

'.—(1) In any legal proceedings in the courts in Wales, or in any tribunal, commission or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the officer in charge shall ascertain at the outset of proceedings whether the defendant or litigant, or whoever the principal party may be, wishes the hearing to be in Welsh or English, and shall proceed accordingly; and after having chosen the language of the hearing, that person shall not be required to furnish translation of any statement or comment which he or she makes.

(2) Where, in accordance with subsection (1) above, a case is to be heard in Welsh, it shall be the duty of the officer of the

court to notify the Lord Chancellor's Department, who shall ensure that the hearing is conducted by a Welsh speaking judge and by Welsh speaking court officers and attendants.

(3) In all prosecutions brought by the Crown in Wales, the prosecuting officer shall conduct the prosecution in the language in which the defendant has chosen to have his hearing.

(4) In cases involving two or more principal parties, who disagree as to the language of the hearing, the judge, chairman, magistrate or inspector shall exercise discretion as to balance of languages at the hearing.

(5) Section 3(2) of the Welsh Courts Act 1942 is hereby repealed.

(6) In Wales, the judge or magistrate presiding at any trial, or hearing, the chairman of any tribunal or commission established by Act of Parliament and an inspector presiding at a public inquiry held by virtue of statutory authority may require the whole or any part of the proceedings conducted in Welsh to be translated into English or from English into Welsh if, in his opinion, the translation thereof is necessary in the interests of justice.

(7) In the Welsh Courts Act 1942 there shall be inserted in section 3 after subsection (1), the following new subsections:
(IA) Such rules as specified in 3(1) above shall include a provision that only translators registered as having reached a sufficient standard of professional competence shall be employed in the proceedings of courts, tribunals, commissions established by Act of Parliament and public inquiry held by virtue of statutory authority in Wales, and translations by any other persons not so registered, shall not be admissable.
(1B) The Lord Chancellor shall keep a register of authorised translators for the purposes of subsection 3(1A) above".

(8) In order to make adequate provision for the purposes of the foregoing subsections of this Act, the Lord Chancellor shall, in making recommendations for the appointment of persons to judicial office, make reasonable provision to ensure that there is a sufficient number of persons holding judicial office who can use Welsh in the conduct of their office.

(9) In appointing justices of the peace for the counties of Wales, the Lord Chancellor shall make reasonable provision for each county of justices able to use Welsh in the conduct of their office.

(10) In appointing to the office in Wales clerks to magistrates, court clerks, Crown prosecutors, probation officers, police officers and inspectors charged with holding public inquiries and members of the clerical and administrative staff and ancillary staff attached to such officers, the appointing authority shall make reasonable provision for officers and staff able and willing to use Welsh in the conduct of their duties at all stages before to as well as at the hearing of any matter.'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 6—Amendment of the Juries Act 1974—
`In section 10 of the Juries Act 1974, there shall be added after the words "on account of physical disability or insufficient knowledge of English" the words "or, in the case of a trial in Wales, where the language appearing likely to be used by the defendant or a principal witness is Welsh, insufficient knowledge of Welsh".'

Mr. Llwyd: I shall try to be brief, because I have already argued the point at length. It concerns the right of a person in Wales to have a trial conducted exclusively through the medium of the Welsh language.
Every time the matter has been raised, it has been argued that the fact that jurors are selected from a pool of Welsh speakers somehow detracts from the principle of random selection. That principle was dreamed up this century. It is not centuries old and cast in stone. Women were not included on jury panels until 1919 and, until 1972, there was a property qualification, which was subsequently broadened. Since 1974, persons over the age of 65, and latterly over the age of 70, have become ineligible to sit on juries.
The main argument against the new clause in the other place and in Committee—somewhat slavishly—was that the principle of random selection has been called into question. I have practised as a solicitor for 15 years, and I understand that a jury should be drawn from one's peers. Including a Welsh language qualification will have no effect on that.
Furthermore, it would be easy to do, because nowadays most juries are drawn from a computer sheet, and one simply needs to take the census figures. When people register to vote, they should be specifically asked whether they speak and understand the Welsh language. That information should then be taken on board when those facts and figures are produced in connection with trials by jury.
I realise that others may have different opinions on this matter, but I adhere to the view that the principle of random selection, such as it is, would not be imperilled by this procedure, to which I have referred on the hoof. I am sure that other more apt arguments could be thought up.
Random selection was discussed last week in connection with the Law Commission's report. I know what the Minister will say, because I have heard it before and have read his speech in the Lords Hansard. Indeed, I argued the point in Committee on that basis.

Dr. Kim Howells: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the novel idea of people ticking a box to confirm whether they speak Welsh, may I point out that, before the last census was taken, advocates of the Welsh language advised people that, if they understood any Welsh at all, they should say that they spoke Welsh. That would not be helpful for someone accused of fraud, for instance, and opting for an all-Welsh trial. A case would be extremely difficult for jurors to understand if they had ticked the box simply because they could say, "Shw ma'i."

Mr. Llwyd: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will know that Wales has always been referred to as "Gwlad y menyg gwynion" and I am sure that few large fraud trials emanate from Wales—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members seem to make a decent living out of them.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's important point, but it is already catered for. Part of a judge's function is to ensure that jurors can understand what will be transacted before the court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will confirm that. If there is any doubt about it, the judge must decide whether a person is fit and able to sit as a juror, so the point could be taken on board at that stage. In any event, a selection process applies in all courts where juries sit.
It is understood that translation is always second best and that principle goes back many years.

Mr. John Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who is an experienced advocate, is nodding.
In 1575 a renowned judge, Sir William Gerrard, who sat on the Wales and Chester circuit, said that judges in Wales should be able to understand the Welsh language. He believed, as many of us do, that translation is strictly second best. I want the Bill to provide that juries, too, should be able to understand it.
On Second Reading, I referred to a Privy Council case that established the principle that English jurors sitting in an English language trial must be able to understand English. That is painfully obvious, but it is appropriate in this instance, and it assists my case.
If I thought that, in asking for provision for Welsh language trials, I was imperiling the interests of justice, I would not be moving the new clause. Clearly, that is a prerequisite. However, although translation is second best, it is wrong that a person who seeks to have his trial dealt with through the medium of the Welsh language should have it dealt with through translation. There are two reasons for that: first, anyone who has conducted a trial will know of the nuances involved in every sentence. Sometimes a word can mean everything in a case.

Mr. Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Llwyd: Again, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon is agreeing with me.
Although there are some excellent translators in Wales, ultimately translations are strictly second best, and we should not be prepared to sanction a system that delivers second-best justice in Wales.
Secondly, with any form of translation, whether simultaneous or not, there is an inevitable time lag of a second or two, often longer, when it is possible that the defendant will have more opportunity to think of a more plausible answer. Perhaps the Minister will consider that matter. Many practitioners throughout Wales, who have, like myself, conducted many trials through the medium of the Welsh language, think that it is never as satisfactory to conduct a trial through a translation. I say that with the greatest respect, and I hope with a sincerity that the Minister will accept. I am pleading for equality with the English language to ensure equality of justice in Welsh courts.
About 98 per cent. of trials in Wales finish their course in the magistrates courts and do not proceed to the Crown court. That argument again does not find favour with me, because there will always be a case where, conceivably, a person will not get the right quality of justice purely because of the language barrier. It is only right that Welsh should be an option, and I see no real difficulty in that approach.
I shall return to the point with which I started about random selection—which, as we know, was thrown at every hon. Member who previously argued about it. The royal commission's report, published in the past week, said:
We are reluctant to interfere with the principle of random selection of juries. We are, however, anxious that everything possible should be done to ensure that people from the ethnic minority communities are represented on juries in relation to their numbers in the local community. The pool from which juries are randomly selected would be more representative if all eligible members of ethnic communities were included on


the electoral roll. Even if this were to be, however, there would statistically still be instances where there would not be a multi-racial jury in a case where one seemed appropriate
The report says that the Commission for Racial Equality had also put that point:
The CRE considered whether the judge should have power to order that the three jurors from the ethnic minority communities should come from the same ethnic minority as the defendant or victim. They concluded, however, that this would be impractical. While this may be so, we believe that it should be open to the defence or prosecution to argue the point and to the judge to be able to order in appropriate cases that one or more of the three jurors should come from the same ethnic minority as the defendant or the victim. We so recommend.
The principle of random selection has been used, not as a smokescreen, but rather as an absolute argument each time the matter has been raised. How long will it be cherished by the Government and remain as it is when the royal commission's views represent a substantial inroad into that principle?
The suggestion of the royal commission is even less practicable than the suggestion that I made in Committee. Nothing is more simple than ensuring that there is an electoral list, with an indication by one's name of whether one can converse in Welsh and understand the Welsh language. It then proceeds by way of computer.
In all honesty, I cannot see how the principle would suddenly be devalued. To those who may argue—although it seems that few will, probably because of lack of interest in the subject—with me about the Monmouth case, for example, on which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) spoke so eloquently, where 2 per cent. of people speak Welsh, I say that, realistically, there could easily be a trial centre in south Wales, a Welsh trial centre in the north and one somewhere in mid-Wales. As a matter of practice, I have frequently been involved in Crown court cases that have been transferred from the town of Caernarfon to Knutsford.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, although I do not agree with his basic premise that the transfer of Welsh cases out of Wales to Chester, and Knutsford especially, is wholly unacceptable. Does the hon. Gentleman support the efforts made—not always successfully—to prevent that?

Mr. Llwyd: As a one-time secretary of the Gwynedd law society, I wrote several letters to the circuit administrator, and I know that some heed has been taken of that problem. I agree that it is a problem, but the general point that I was making was that trial centres could take place in one, two or three centres in Wales, which would create far less potential inconvenience than if the cases were transferred to Caernarfon or Knutsford at the last minute.
It has also been argued that, if the new clause were accepted, potential jurors, be they English people or Welsh people who cannot speak Welsh, would be excluded. At the worst, one would have to hurt the feelings of jurors who could not sit on a jury because they did not speak Welsh. From experience, I would say that most potential jurors would be relieved not to have to sit on a jury, especially in a lengthy fraud trial. I say that out of a sense of jest rather than anything else.
If it is a choice between hurting the feelings of a potential juror and achieving quality of justice, of course the scales weigh heavily in favour of the quality of justice. The Minister must be aware that, as Welsh language trials

are conducted with ease in magistrates courts throughout Dyfed, Clwyd and Gwynedd, that facility should also be available in Crown courts. To continue with a second-class delivery of justice is unacceptable. I plead with the Minister at this eleventh hour to accept my reasonable new clause.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I know that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) moved the new clause in complete sincerity and with a determination founded on principle, for which I respect him greatly. He will probably agree that we are discussing a tricky balance of interests. It is matter of judgment how the House decides, but I come down on the other side from the hon. Gentleman.
As I said earlier—although I deprived myself of one year—I declare the interest of having practised on the Wales and Chester circuit for 22 years. I have conducted a great many Crown court trials and, I am delighted to say, some of them have been well instructed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who has an excellent reputation as a good solicitor in his county. I hope by saying that that I shall ensure that he instructs me again. I do not think that the rules against touting apply in the House—at least I hope not.
I also defer to the remarks made on the subject by two extremely distinguished and senior legal colleagues of mine, who are both members of the Wales and Chester circuit: my noble Friend Lord Hooson and the noble Lord Thomas of Gwydir. Lord Thomas has now retired, but Lord Hooson is still practising. They both practised on that circuit for more than 45 years. They both came to the same conclusion as I did, but unlike myself, they are capable of conducting a trial through the medium of Welsh at any level and in any court. They share with me the experience of being involved in trials where witnesses have given their evidence through the medium of Welsh and where simultaneous translation has been used.
I agree that occasionally nuances in a person's voice, a word used or even an inflection may make some difference. However, I have never been in a case in which I have found that the nuance has been lost through the simultaneous translation. Indeed, my experience of simultaneous translation, not only in criminal courts, but in other tribunals, such as planning appeals, is that the quality of simultaneous translation in Wales is now as good as that at the United Nations, where I have seen it in operation, and perhaps better. It is capable of ensuring that the court has a full appreciation.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that the time that translation gave a person to think might make what he said more plausible. The courts are not really concerned with plausibility. Plausibility is often what convicts a liar. The lie may be plausible, but it is all too easily detected as a lie by its very plausibility. The process by which juries reach a decision is sophisticated. Unfortunately, it is not well understood, although, as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, we may be able to do some proper research into the way in which juries operate.
I do not believe that juries are deprived of the opportunity to reach the truth by the fact that they may not speak Welsh as fluently as the defendant does, if they speak it at all. Indeed, the recent experience of those who


might have wished to be tried by all-Welsh speaking juries, in north Wales at least, has shown that they are capable of obtaining substantial justice without the need for the new clause.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I remember reading a recent translation in the organisation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman just referred. Someone said in French, "This issue depends on the good sense of the people of Normandy." It was translated in English as, "This depends on Norman wisdom." How can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that all the full nuances of a language are translated unless in his cases he has understood both languages with great fluency? Is he making that judgment on the basis of his fluency in Welsh and in English?

Mr. Carlile: I am glad to have been able to take the part of feed to the hon. Gentleman's joke, which I suspect is more Morecambe than Wise. I have already said that, in my view, the simultaneous translation system available in Wales may be better than that available at the United Nations. I can speak only of my own experience, combined with the 90 or so years of combined experience of the noble Lords to whom I have referred. I recognise that there is a balance of interests, and it appears that my judgment does not accord with that of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
There is a fundamental misstatement of the nature of a trial in the new clause. New clause 5(1) refers to the principal party at a trial as if there was only one. There are two principal parties in any criminal trial in the Crown court. There is the defendant who is, of course, always regarded as the most important principal party, but the trial would not occur at all were it not for the other principal party, which is the Crown. In balancing the interests of the Crown, which also have to be protected as we have seen in a very controversial verdict in London in recent days, and the interests of the defendant, we come to the conclusion that the present system of jury trial in Wales is adequate.
Many examples can be given of why it would not be just to enable people to choose to be tried only by Welsh-speaking juries. Harking back to an historical jury panel does not help the argument. I do not want to go back to jury panels that excluded women. I do not want to go back to jury panels that included only people of property. I do not want to go back to a jury class that was restricted by artificial distinctions.
One of the greatest advances that we have made in attempting to secure fairness in jury trials during this century, and especially during the second half of the century, is to increase the number of people from whom jurors are selected. I believe that random selection is a principle worth holding to.
More than just principle is at stake. Let us consider a few examples of what might occur. Let us suppose that there was a burglary in the town of Montgomery in my constituency. There was a burglary at Bunners Agricultural Ironmongers in Montgomery some time ago. It caused something of a stir because, in the middle of the night, the Dyfed-Powys police helicopter went out and caught the burglars en route back to the midlands.
Let us suppose that there was another burglary in Montgomery, which was committed by somebody who said that he wanted an all-Welsh jury. That would exclude

almost the entire population of Montgomery and of Welshpool from serving on that jury, because there are not many people in Montgomery and in Welshpool who happen to speak Welsh.
It is a fair principle that the people of the area in which the crime has been committed have the right to serve on the jury. It is fair to say that they would be deeply offended—rightly so—if they found that they were excluded from being able to serve on a jury dealing with crimes committed in their area. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in his place. The Monmouth example is too obvious to state.
Let us take another example. In past decades, a celebrated and much-loved Queen's counsel on the Wales and Chester circuit was known for his success in fraud trials. I do not know whether this is a fair comment, because I never saw him conducting a fraud trial, but I am told that one of the reasons for his success was that he had a great capacity for so totally confusing the jury that it was driven eventually to return a verdict of not guilty because it had so failed to understand the case that it could not be sure that the defendant was guilty.
Let us suppose that a guilty fraudster was prosecuted and that he had committed a fraud entirely through the medium of English, using an English accounting system while working for an English company in Wales. Being a wily fraudster, he decides that one way to cause confusion is to insist on having a trial in Welsh.
That is not an absurd example. In 22 years of working in the criminal courts, I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no shortage of people around who would take advantage of such an opportunity. I of course acquit the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), who is another good solicitor, of that charge. However, there may be solicitors around who would say to their clients, "Well, why don't you ask for a trial in Welsh so that we can confuse the issue further?"
That is a realistic and practical problem. The establishment of Welsh language trial centres in different parts of Wales would not resolve the problems to which I have referred.

Mr. Llwyd: I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's advocacy in the Crown courts and of his experience, and I appreciate his point. However, I do not see why, in Welshpool, for example, it would be impracticable to empanel a Welsh-speaking jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Monmouth example. Next door to Monmouth there are tens of thousands of Welsh-speaking people in Cardiff. If the trial centre was in Cardiff, people in Monmouth would have to go only seven or eight miles along the road. There is the answer.

Mr. Carlile: I would ask the hon. Gentleman why people from Monmouth should be excluded from serving on a jury when the alleged offences were committed in Monmouth. That, in my view, defies logic.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to say two things about the hon. and learned Member's analysis. First, most Welsh language trials would be in Dyfed, Gwynedd or other Welsh-speaking areas. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about exceptional circumstances. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman describes Welsh-speaking fraudsters and others who might choose to use the


language as a vehicle to escape justice. I wish to point out that Dyfed and Powys have the lowest incidence of crime in Britain. I am sure that the situation is similar in Gwynedd. Welsh-speaking people are law-abiding.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he has been following the newspapers recently, that the largest fraud committed in Wales is now between conviction and sentence, and relates to offences that were committed in the counties of Powys, for the most part, and Dyfed. That is the Foulkes Ingram case. I can immediately contradict the hon. Gentleman on that score.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I will not give way again. There may be other hon. Members who wish to speak, and we will want to hear the Minister's response.
There is one aspect in which I echo the remarks of the hon. Gentleman for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. It is essential that there should be enough judges and practitioners in Wales capable of understanding and speaking Welsh, to the extent that they are able to conduct with total fluency those parts of a trial that are heard in Welsh.
We have a distinguished body of such practitioners in Wales. I mentioned the two noble Lords as examples. There are many Welsh-speaking judges of great distinction. The Minister of State's brother is one of the best known of them—a greatly admired and just civil judge in north Wales. He is known to other hon. Members also.
I would be the first to say that I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to follow the policy of looking for suitable Welsh speakers to fill judicial appointments. I also hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will pursue its policy of employing professional officers and others who can conduct trials and can assist the police with advice, where necessary through the medium of Welsh. It is important to do so. When it comes to the selection of jurors, the principle of random selection should be paramount.
Let us not forget the final point that I wish to make. If there was a case in which it was patently unjust that the trial should be conducted by the jury panel that was selected by random selection through the computerised system that is now used, a procedure remains open to the defendant and his legal advisers. It is possible to make what is called a challenge to the array, which is a challenge to the whole jury panel. It is not often done, and is probably done successfully even more rarely. I certainly have seen it done on one occasion and I believe that I have done it once myself in 22 years. The opportunity remains in common law to challenge—in extreme circumstances—the panel that is brought to court.
If a defendant came before the court on a serious charge and it were possible to show that he did not understand English sufficiently to be tried fairly, and that it was not possible for one reason or another for a simultaneous translation to meet the needs of the case, then the judge might exercise his discretion to allow a challenge to the array. The possibility ought not to be brushed aside, and I thought it right to mention it in the debate.

Mr. Flynn: I hate to intervene in what appears to be a private debate between lawyers, solicitors and the relatives of lawyers. That is probably why it has attracted so much attention in the House, attention that is out of all proportion to its importance.
I was provoked by the failure of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to answer my simple question. How did he come to make the statement that all the fine nuances of a language are communicated when it is translated from English to Welsh? It is not possible, unless one has a thorough knowledge of both languages.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was silent on that particular issue—I respect his right to silence. I have never heard him speak Welsh. I look forward to that joy, and it is a moment for which I shall live. I do not know on what the hon. and learned Gentleman bases his judgment, but if he does not speak Welsh there is no way that he can make a decision on the matter.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made another point—one of some, if not great, importance—which was that people have a burning desire to make judgments on crimes that have been committed in their own countries. There may be something in that. However, overriding that are the needs of people who speak Welsh as a first language. No one speaks another language in the way that they speak their first language, which is usually learnt in the cradle. It is the language in which we are happiest, and most comfortable. People have different personalities in different languages. We can all think of people who are dignified and on whom we look with respect in one language who are stuttering buffoons in another. It happens in many languages. The right to speak in a proper and comfortable way is more important than the right to speak on juries.
I shall finish with one brief point. I was in the town of Harlech and wrote a cheque in Welsh at a strange bank. I handed over the cheque and my identification, but the person behind the counter brushed the identification aside, and said in Welsh that there was no need for identification. "Crooks do not use Welsh."

Mr. Morgan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) I feel a degree of diffidence about this matter, and as a non-lawyer, I am fearful of sounding like a "stuttering buffoon."

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): As a non-lawyer also, I wonder when I hear lawyers talk about balances whether we should also hear about the "cheques".

Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is trying to prove that the description of him in The Guardian last week was true. The newspaper described him as having the eyes of Hannibal Lecter and the hairstyle of Bob Monkhouse. He was trying there to show that he has also the wit of Bob Monkhouse. Most people would not want to be associated with Bob Monkhouse, even if they did. not mind being associated with Hannibal Lecter.
My point was about the practicality of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about computerised jury lists. The case for eligibility for jury service is currently denoted on the computerised version of electoral rolls—although, I


believe, not on the versions that appear in print—to ensure that OAPs are no longer called for jury service. It seems a practical extension of that principle to provide the same electoral computerised roll, only stating the availability of and the competence of a person to act as a juror in Welsh.

Mr. Alex Carlile: How would the hon. Gentleman test the ability of those who perhaps might put the letter "W" on an electoral roll to indicate that they spoke Welsh?

Mr. Morgan: That is a practical problem which seems far from insuperable when it comes to the selection of a jury at a trial. It would not be difficult for a judge to put a request to the jurors before the start of a trial, asking them to assure the court that they were capable of handling the case, whether it be a complicated fraud case or a relatively simple, open and shut burglary case. It is not an insuperable practical problem, but it would help to solve the long-standing grievance that people have felt over their inability to claim a jury trial in Welsh.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The debate has concentrated largely on the jury system. We had a similar debate in Committee. Hon. Members who represent the legal profession showed then that there is a division of opinion among them about the matter. I am sure that that would also be the case in the House as a whole.
I set out in Committee, the Government's policy about all-Welsh juries and the Government's view remains unchanged. We do not consider it appropriate to make provision to require juries of trials conducted through the medium of Welsh to be composed solely of people who understand Welsh, mainly because we cannot allow anything to interfere with the principle of random selection of juries nor place further hurdles in the way of the administration of justice.
I call in aid not only all the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) but the findings of the report by the late Lord Edmund Davies. The Government's policy conforms with the recommendations of his report and I remain firmly of the view that the best way to safeguard not only the interests of Welsh speakers but justice generally is by means of simultaneous translation.
I have heard what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said about nuances and so on, but, as I understand it, the translation service has improved considerably in recent years.
I can tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I am aware of the royal commission's recommendation on jury composition, but I have to remind him that it is only a recommendation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider many matters relating to jury composition in the light of the royal commission's recommendations. However, the commission itself, as I think that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, has stressed the difficulty of departing from the guiding principle of random selection, even in a limited way. I am sure that we will want to move with extreme caution in any matters relating to the selection of juries.
It is worth reminding the House that the Bill re-enacts the provision in the Welsh Language Act 1967 which gives the right to a defendant or another party at a legal hearing to give evidence in Welsh should he or she choose to do so.
I was pleased to be able to table an amendment in Committee that further clarified the position of written evidence in the courts. In future, the Lord Chancellor will produce rules of court governing the submission of written evidence in Welsh. They will be able to cover detailed matters including the need to give notice and the need to protect the interests of parties to a hearing who do not understand Welsh.
Many hearings in Wales, particularly in magistrates courts, take place entirely in Welsh. That policy will continue, but is a matter that must remain at the discretion of court authorities. Therefore, the Government cannot agree to the proposal set out in the new clause that the matter be left to the discretion of the defendant or litigant.
I am pleased to be able to reiterate today the undertaking that I gave during Committee that the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to seek to facilitate the use of Welsh in the court service wherever it is reasonably practicable and will not interfere with the efficient administration of justice. He must be able to have regard to all the relevant criteria in appointing judges and other legal officers in Wales. The Government do not, however, believe that it will be acceptable to restrict the discretion of the Lord Chancellor to make the most suitable appointments, as the new clause suggests.
In view of what I have said, and in concluding this short debate, I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed to a division.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister says that he is unpersuaded. Frankly, I am unpersuaded towards his view. We shall beg to differ on that. In the light of the Runciman proposals in the royal commission report, if there were a change of practice following on that which I described earlier and of which the Minister is aware, will he reconsider?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that when the Home Secretary considers the royal commission's recommendation he will take into account what has been said today on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Llwyd: In that case, I do not wish to press the matter to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

DISCRIMINATION (SECTION I(B) OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976.

It is hereby declared that for the purposes of section 1(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 a person does not discriminate against another by reason only of the fact that such person applies to that other a requirement or condition that he or she be able to communicate in Wales through the medium of the Welsh language.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with the way in which race relations legislation has been brought into matters relating to the Welsh language over the past decade. We had a fairly extensive debate in Committee and our feeling is that the issue was not satisfactorily resolved in Committee. That feeling has been strengthened by evidence that came to my notice before the Committee stage came to an end.
There was a case some eight of nine years ago concerning appointments to an old people's home in Ynys Mon, where, if I remember correctly, 29 of the 30 residents were Welsh speaking. When the jobs were advertised, a requirement was that applicants should be Welsh speaking. An attempt was made to bring in the Commission for Racial Equality on the basis that it was racial discrimination to include such a clause. I accept that there are many jobs where knowledge of a particular language is irrelevant—it does not matter whether people are train drivers, or perform a host of other jobs. However, there are many jobs where a knowledge of the Welsh language is important—broadcasting and teaching speak for themselves.
In constituencies such as mine, where Welsh is the main language of 84 per cent. of the population, it is important that those appointed to jobs dealing with the public can deal with them in whichever language the public wish. It is a matter of considerable offence if, when a local authority or any other employer—or potential employer—makes it a condition that the ability to speak Welsh or have an understanding of it is necessary for a certain job, it may be taken before the Commission for Racial Equality on the basis that it is acting in a racist manner. That is nonsense.
That was not the reasoning behind the legislation that set up the CRE. It is an abuse of the Race Relations Act 1976 to use it for that purpose. There has been continuing discussion about that over many years. From meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I had with the Minister of State, I thought that the Government would table an amendment, on Committee or Report, that would resolve the problem, and that there would be a change in legislation that would meet that, although perhaps not using the wording of the amendment—I think a Labour amendment—in Committee. We have tabled similar amendments.
I was flabbergasted when the Minister rejected the arguments outright in Committee. He said:
I am pleased to reassure the Committee that current employment law provides the flexibility that we require."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, I July 1993; c. 217.]
He said that it was not necessary. I checked with the CRE as to exactly its position.
7.30 pm
In a letter that I had this month from Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, he says:
In the past there was a conflict between the Commission and the Welsh Language Board over the issue but I am informed that a compromise was agreed in 1991. The agreed position now is reflected in the proposed amendment to Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the following terms:
He then details the specific agreed proposed amendment to that legislation:
For the purpose of the Part of the Act a requirement or condition relating to ability to communicate in Welsh shall be justifiable where the person to whom it is applied would, in the course of employment to which the requirement or condition applies, deal on a regular basis with persons who normally use Welsh and the level of ability required is no greater than is needed to do so.
There is a subsequent subsection.
That wording is very similar to the wording of the Labour amendment in Committee. The chairman goes on to say:
I hope this clarifies the position of the Commission.

The position is, therefore, that the commission has agreed with the Welsh Language Board that there is a problem; it has agreed on the solution and that it can be by means of amending legislation. So what on earth are we waiting for, I ask the Minister. Here is the vehicle for doing it.
I accept that the wording of our new clause 7 is not identical to the wording that the Commission for Racial Equality has before it. But, if that is indeed the position, I urge the Minister to accept new clause 7 now, and he can amend that in the House of Lords, when the Bill goes back there, by putting in the wording agreed by the commission and the Welsh Language Board. That is a simple mechanism that is open to him and enables him to keep his options open, in order to put right what is a very strongly-felt perceived wrong.
The question goes beyond the technicality that I have described. Here we have what is essentially the Government's own approach to how to deal with the Welsh language. We have the Welsh Language Board dealing with an institution—the Commission for Racial Equality in this case—and coming to an agreement. That is the whole basis of the Government's set of schemes and proposals enshrined in the Bill.
What happens, then, when there is an agreement and it is necessary for Parliament to put it into effect, as will be the case with many other schemes that flow from this legislation? If Parliament turns its back and says that it disagrees and will not implement the agreement, it blows asunder the argument that the Minister made at various times in Committee that the schemes can deliver the goods, and that the Secretary of State or the Minister will adopt an agreed position arrived at through negotiation and discussion between two interested bodies.
We have very clearly a test of the Government's own approach to legislation. The argument is conclusive. The attitude of the Minister in private discussions that we had in his office a few weeks ago showed that he had sympathy with what we were trying to do and it was a matter of having an agreed form of words. We now have an agreed form of words.
I therefore put it to the House that we should accept new clause 7, although it may be flawed, with the intention of the Government coming back in the House of Lords to see whether the agreed formula that I have had from the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality can be built in at that stage, and this long-running, long-festering ill can be put right once and for all.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I will certainly look into the point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just made about the agreement between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality. If I heard him correctly, the proposal was for an amendment to the relevant legislation under the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mr. Wigley: I understand that the Minister has not had a copy of this letter. Had I thought in advance, I would probably have made a copy available to him. I apologise for not doing so. However, in the same way as new clause 7 amends section 1(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976, the proposed new amendment would put in a subsection (a) to section 4 of that Act. It is clearly in order for us to do that through this legislation, otherwise new clause 7 would not


have been accepted for debate tonight. Using that as a basis, the question can be approached in another place and the argument taken on.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I certainly take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will look further into that matter. We have already had to look very carefulLy at the issue of stipulating Welsh as a condition of employment during the course of our preparations for the Bill. It was important, because one result of the Bill will be to require the presence of Welsh speakers in certain posts in the public sector in Wales. That is already the case for many jobs and it will remain the case in future. We therefore had to be satisfied that the provisions in employment law governing discrimination would not stand in the way of employment policies that aim to do no more than ensure that public bodies are able to comply with the terms of the legislation.
This is a complex area in which there seems to have been a fair degree of confusion in the wake of the Gwynedd case, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The confusion seems to have obscured the fact that employers are entitled to stipulate Welsh as a condition of employment so long as they are able to justify such a requirement. The law requires, not that an employer should demonstrate that such a requirement is absolutely necessary, but that it should be able to be justified. That, of course, is a lesser test. It would be for the courts to interpret in individual cases.
The amendment that was before us in Committee sought to define what the justification criteria amounted to. Earl Ferrers acknowledged in the debate in another place that this was an interesting way to approach the issue, and this was something that we looked at very carefully.
As I explained in Committee, the conclusion that we reached was that a formulation of this sort would not place employment policies beyond legal challenge. In particular, whatever we said in our domestic legislation would not necessarily remove such policies from challenge under European employment law. It would not be acceptable to pursue policies in this country which did not conform to European law. New clause 21, proposed in Committee, came closer to meeting these legal difficulties than does the present new clause, but I regret that neither is able to overcome them all.
The other important point that I sought to explain during the debate in Committee was that the introduction of Welsh language schemes would be an important factor in reducing the uncertainty that there might have been in this area. The Government's legal advice is that a public body is likely to be regarded as justified in requiring that an employee speak Welsh if, otherwise, there would not be enough Welsh-speaking employees in suitable posts to cope with the demand for Welsh language services. In other words, the introduction of Welsh language schemes will serve to give some indication of what is justified in this context, and will therefore serve to reduce whatever possibility there may be of employment policies being successfully challenged.

Mr. Rowlands: This has just begun to sink in to me—I am a bit slow this evening. Are we to take it from the Minister's remarks that he has not seen the draft

amendment by the Commission for Racial Equality and was unaware of the discussions between it and the Welsh Language Board and of the agreed amendment?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I was not aware of the amendment. I gather that it was contained in a letter to the hon. Member for Caernarfon that he received fairly recently. I have said that I will certainly look into the matter further. I do not think that the House would expect me to go further this evening. I am trying to outline the situation as I see it, and the impact of this Bill on the subject under discussion.
The need for employment policies to be justifiable provides important safeguards. In particular, it reflects our view that the delivery of Welsh language schemes should not be dependent on every employee in the public sector being a Welsh speaker. We know that that is not the case. As I have said, much can be achieved through the use of translation and interpretation services.
Having looked at the matter very closely, I am satisfied that existing employment law, while not entirely removing the possibility of legal challenge, provides us with the required flexibility to put Welsh language schemes into effect.

Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. When he replied to me earlier, without the advantage of his notes, he was more sympathetic and warm than he is now that he has got back to his rehearsed script.
The Minister said in his earlier remarks that he is prepared to consider our proposal. If that assurance is to be meaningful—and if there is to be an agreed proposed amendment that requires legislation—he will need a hook on which to attach it in another place.
There is no other amendment under which the legislation can be included when the Bill goes back to the other place. If, after having looked at the matter, and having considered it with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Welsh Language Board, the Minister agrees that the change should be built into law, it would be sensible to accept new clause 7 tonight. That would provide the Minister with a vehicle to which he can attach the legislation. If, after having looked at it, he considers that there is no need for legislation, the new clause can be taken out in the House of Lords. That would allow him flexibility one way or the other.
If the Minister does not accept that, he is saying, "Yes, this is a form of words that I am willing to consider, but in practice I am closing my options now."

Mr. Rowlands: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being persuasive. We have all been here long enough to know that the Government are not likely to table an amendment to the Race Relations Act in the next parliamentary Session to deal with this particular point. The only chance is to use the Bill as a vehicle, and I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Mr. Wigley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not of great party-political import. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to avoid cases going to the Commission for Racial Equality, industrial tribunals and so forth.
The Minister said that we must act within both our employment law and European employment law. I accept that, but I remind him—very gently—that our earlier argument about status was that European employment


law was the basis of the case taken to the European Court when a Dutch citizen objected to a language condition on a job in Ireland. That reminds me of his own words: he said that European employment law, the status of the Welsh language and the interplay of the Welsh language in United Kingdom legislation are vitally important, just as it is important in Irish legislation.
I believe that there is a way forward. I hope that the Minister will tell me either that there is another mechanism whereby this can be put into practice in another place—if he agrees to accept what the CRE and the Welsh Language Board—want or that he will accept new clause 7. If there is some other way of doing it, that is fine.
We want to make progress so that when there may be an element of racism—which exists in Wales, as it does everywhere else—the people concerned can legitimately go to the courts. The courts should not be tied by the use of this legislation for matters for which it is not intended.
Has the Minister any comment before I decide whether to press the issue? I would rather elicit an agreement to further consideration in the House of Lords than press for a vote that we might lose.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have had a great deal of advice on the Groener case, and I gave the essence of that advice earlier. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to an agreement between the Welsh Language Board and the CRE. He will know that I do not legislate on the hoof, and that the matter is properly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—whom I would certainly have to consult, as well as the Government as a whole, before I could give any commitment to legislate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will examine the matter.

Mr. Wigley: I do not want this to drag on—the guts of the argument have been adequately rehearsed—but unless something is done on Report to give the Minister a vehicle with which to legislate, the provision will not be put into the Bill in another place.
I asked the Minister to clarify whether there was an alternative way of handling the matter in another place. I assume from his silence that there is not. Unless a new clause such as this is introduced tonight, there will not be a hook in the other place on which the Minister can attach any new clause, such as the letter that I have cited suggests.
I understand that the Minister must discuss the matter with his colleagues, but if at the end of that he says, "Yes, fine, this is what is needed", he is going to close his option tonight unless he accepts the new clause, or he can tell me of some other way of handling it. Surely it is a reasonable way to make progress. It is the way in which the House should legislate. We should consider all the possibilities and see how they can be met. There is a consensus on what we want to do; it is a matter of how we do it. That gives us the possibility of doing something in the House of Lords.
Unless the Minister can give some indication of a way of handling this matter in the House of Lords, we shall have no alternative but to divide on it.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I can say nothing more about the hon. Gentleman's main point. However, he should not forget that every public body operating in Wales, including the CRE, will be obliged to produce a scheme. I think that the

matters to which he has referred are likely to feature in such a scheme and that may well be the proper place for it.

Mr. Wigley: That may be the case; it may be something that is appropriate for a scheme. However, the CRE and the Welsh Language Board have reached an agreement that there should be a change of legislation. If that was the outcome of many of the other schemes—that discussions will take place between the Welsh Language Board and a host of other organisations in Wales—and bodies come forward and say, "Well, this and that needs to be done, Minister", and the Minister says, "No, I am sorry; you have reached an agreement but I am not going to do it", that would underline our fears about the way in which the board will work without any statutory rights.
The Welsh Language Board and the CRE have determined that there needs to be a statutory provision. The Government are apparently unwilling to use the Bill as a vehicle, even though it is an eminently suitable one. They are not even willing to keep the option open for the few days until the Bill comes back from the House of Lords, presumably next week. The Government are showing an unreasonable unwillingness in not allowing that facility to be kept open for the next few days.
If the Minister has said his last word on the subject and can add nothing further, we shall have no option but to divide the House. It is sad that we cannot take this step when it is what the Minister wants to do—in line with the conversations that we have had—when it is what the Commission for Racial Equality wants to do, when it is what the Welsh Language Board wants to do, when it is what the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales want to do and when, I suspect, it is what the majority of hon. Members want to do.

Mr. Morgan: May I, too, press the Minister, bearing in mind the fact that we have probably reached a crunch point in tonight's proceedings? The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says that if new clause 7 is not accepted, the right hon. Gentleman will have pre-empted the possibility of the Government's accepting an agreement that appears to have been struck between the CRE and the Welsh Language Board. If the new clause were accepted, the Government would not be pre-empted from introducing a form of words in the other place when Commons amendments are considered there.
If the Government find that such a provision is not practical, that the agreement to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred does not exist or that the matter has been misunderstood, they can take action in the other place to remedy matters. But if the Minister does not accept the new clause tonight, there will be no possibility of using the Bill to enact the agreement that has been struck between the Welsh Language Board and the CRE.

Mr. Wigley: I was making that precise point. There is no alternative to what we are suggesting. If the new clause is not accepted now, the whole issue is closed. I urge the Government to examine the matter to ensure that the wording of the new clause reflects the point that we have in mind.

Mr. Morgan: They are frightened of losing face.

Mr. Wigley: If that is all it is, the Government are adducing the worst of all arguments. Leaving aside any question of saving or losing face, we simply want to get rid


of a problem that all concerned agree exists. I repeat, if the Government find, after scrutiny, that the drafting of new clause 7 does not represent the way in which the Welsh Language Board and the commission wish to make progress, the provision can be removed or amended in the other place.

Mr. Flynn: Many hon. Members, including myself, are hearing the argument for the first time and are totally persuaded by what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says. Many accusations are made about the unreasonableness and elective dictatorship of the Government. The Conservatives have little support in Wales—32 seats out of 500 at the last election—and are being unreasonable tonight.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon is simply arguing that the options must be kept open. We had a vivid demonstration last night of the dominance of the Conservatives in the other place. It is clear that they will be able to do what they like when the Bill arrives there. They can remove the new clause or alter it at that stage. If they do not accept it tonight, they will be slamming the door closed until a future Government bring forward another Welsh language measure. That will probably not happen in the lifetime of any of us here now. If the Government do not accept the new clause, they will be acting against the wishes of the people of Wales.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman voices my feelings. If the Government are not willing to keep their options open for a few days while they investigate the issue—knowing for certain that they can remove the provision in the other place if the wording is not acceptable—they will be seen as having been totally unreasonable in their handling of this legislation.
Accusations are already flying around in the context of the earlier debate, in which plenty of emotion was expressed. We have had a cool and calculated discussion of a matter which we all agree has been a problem. If the Government do not use the vehicle of this Bill to deal with the issue now, they will be open to all sorts of accusations in Wales.
I am trying to save the Government from themselves, although they seem determined to go down a different avenue. I urge the Minister and the occupants of the Treasury Bench at least to keep their mouths shut when the Question is put, so enabling the new clause to become part of the Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: I make a final plea to the Minister. It is astonishing that such a discussion could occur between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, resulting in a well-drafted amendment being produced in respect of a piece of legislation that has already been before the House, yet neither the Minister nor his officials knew anything about it.
We are old enough to know that, unless we take advantage of this Bill to put that matter right, the chances of the next Government or the one after that finding time to make such a change will be negligible. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the new clause, thereby giving him time to examine the matter afresh, after which he can move to delete it or redraft it in the other place to reflect what has been agreed between two sensible organisations.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must consult the Secretary of State for Employment, but as it seems that he does not oppose the idea and as the House would be willing to give it more than a fair wind, he should accept the new clause. As I say, the chances of passing a separate piece of amending legislation on the subject in the near future are slim.
I beg the Minister to prevent the House from dividing on the matter. We are all basically on the same side. Perhaps the Minister agrees with us, having had time to reflect on it, and will now accept the new clause. It would not involve him getting sacked. He has managed to survive for 14 years, so accepting it on the hoof, as it were, should cause him no problem.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the House that we considered the matter thoroughly before the debate took place. We do not find the new clause acceptable. I have outlined the position in relation to employment law and the Welsh language. It is not Government practice to accept amendments in which we do not believe and which we think are incorrect.
The position is that there is agreement between the CRE and the Welsh Language Board. As far as I am aware, the Government have not been consulted about inserting that agreement in legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will not press the matter to a Division, but, if he does, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mr. Wigley: I make a final plea in a debate that has shed light not only on the subject under discussion but on the way in which the Government listen to our arguments and respond to them. I recall taking a deputation concerned with disability issues to see a Minister of lower rank than the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this measure. That junior Minister listened to us and said, "The advice of my civil servants is that I must resist your request but, having listened to you, I shall accept it."

Mr. Morgan: I understand that a letter has been sent by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board on the matter to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of State. I wonder whether we might elicit some information about whether he responded to that letter.

Mr. Wigley: I, too, have seen the press reports this week. There seems to have been some confusion between what is understood in the Welsh Office and what is understood by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Welsh Language Board. As there was a report of that, in the Western Mail a few days ago, I should have thought that by now the Government would at least have found out what the position was. I should have been surprised if there had not been some correspondence.

8 pm

Mr. Rowlands: The matter is becoming more serious. The Minister made a clear and unequivocal statement that neither he nor his Department knew about that arrangement.

Mr. Wigley: That was the comment made earlier. Clearly, the Minister had not seen the letter I received, but I should have imagined that the contents of a letter sent to me as a Back Bencher would have been similar to any proposals that had been brought to the attention of the Minister.

Mr. Morgan: Has the Minister seen it?

Mr. Wigley: I also ask whether the Minister has seen the correspondence with the CRE. I understand that it is being checked out at the moment and I shall be interested to hear whether he has seen it.
If he has seen it and he is aware that there was an agreement, and yet he responded in the way that he did in Committee, he was misleading the Committee. If, however, the correspondence has arrived since the Committee, it is new information on which the Government should be acting. The response from the Minister is the same as that which he gave us in Committee. In other words, I am not quite sure whether Welsh Office Ministers have been on top of their act. It sems not only that they have not, but that they are not prepared to consider the possibility that there is other information and that they need a vehicle to find a way out of it.
The debate has continued long enough and the embarrassment of the Government has been exposed for all the people of Wales to see. I hope that there is some way in which the Government can do something in the House of Lords, but I do not believe that there is. I believe that the Government, by their shout in a few moments' time, will be closing the options to something that they believe should be done. It is an incredible reflection of the Government's behaviour.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I want to clear up one thing. I said that I had not seen a copy of the letter sent to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware that there have been discussions between the board and the CRE. We at the Welsh Office have been discussing these matters with the CRE for some time. We considered the amendment that he is now putting forward quite a long time ago, but we reached the conclusion that it was not an acceptable amendment and we have not changed our conclusion.

Mr. Wigley: I take it, therefore, from what the Minister is saying that he had seen the amendment to which the letter I received refers. If he had not seen it, he could not make that judgment. So he has seen it; presumably it was not a rushed decision as the judgment was made in 1991—two years ago—and there has been adequate time to find a way forward.
It is a portent of what will occur between the Welsh Language Board and the Government. There will be schemes that take months to agree between the Welsh Language Board and various parts of the public sector in Wales. They will be sat on for two years by the Government and then, at the end of the day, Ministers will refuse to accept the unanimous advice from Wales.
We had hoped that we could have supported the legislation. Our discussion tonight underlines why we believe that there is a central vacuum in the Bill; it contains no rights at all. All the rights are there, but the Government are not willing to use them and the people of Wales will suffer.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:—Ayes 31, Noes 135.

Division No. 336]
[8.03 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Menzies (File NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Bob


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)





Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Rendel, David


Flynn, Paul
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Harvey, Nick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stott, Roger


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wise, Audrey


Llwyd, Elfyn



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.


Morgan, Rhodri



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Jack, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
Jessel, Toby


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Key, Robert


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Baldry, Tony
Legg, Barry


Bates, Michael
Lidington, David


Bellingham, Henry
Lightbown, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lord, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Booth, Hartley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Brandreth, Gyles
Malone, Gerald


Brazier, Julian
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Burns, Simon
Merchant, Piers


Burt, Alistair
Milligan, Stephen


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Clappison, James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Congdon, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Conway, Derek
Page, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Paice, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Patnick, Irvine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Stephen
Richards, Rod


Dover, Den
Riddick, Graham


Duncan, Alan
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Elletson, Harold
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Faber, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Speed, Sir Keith


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


French, Douglas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Gale, Roger
Spink, Dr Robert


Gallie, Phil
Sproat, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stephen, Michael


Hague, William
Stern, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Streeter, Gary


Harris, David
Sweeney, Walter


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hendry, Charles
Thomason, Roy


Horam, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Tredinnick, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Trend, Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter






Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Whittingdale, John



Willetts, David

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

RIGHT TO WELSH MEDIUM EDUCATION

'(1) Every local education authority in Wales shall provide for every child or young person of school age in Wales whose parents so desire, the opportunity to receive education in, and through the medium of, Welsh, within a reasonable distance of their home.

(2) The cost of providing education through the medium of Welsh in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining the capital and revenue support requirements of each local education authority in Wales on an annual basis.'.—[Mr. Wigtey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, after '(1)',insert
Except as provided in subsection (2A) below.
No. 11, in page 2, line 45, at end insert
'(2A) The scheme referred to in subsection (1) above shall not include measures in connection with the provision by a local education authority of education in the medium of Welsh.'.
No. 13, in clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 21 to 23.
No. 15, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, at end insert
'(2A) A notice under subsection (1) above may not require a local education authority to prepare a scheme in relation to the provision of education in the medium of Welsh.'.

Mr. Wigley: I hope that we do not take as long discussing new clause 10 and the associated amendments as we took to discuss the previous group. The new clause relates to the right to Welsh-medium education. Those who served on the Standing Committee will recall the considerable debate on that matter. As a result, the new clause that we tabled in Committee has been revised to give the right to Welsh-medium education to all children of school age.
The new clause contains a provision to meet the fears expressed by some Opposition Members that an additional financial burden would be imposed on Welsh local education authorities. Subsection (2) states:
The cost of providing education through the medium of Welsh in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining the capital and revenue support requirements of each local education authority in Wales on an annual basis.
That subsection should allay the misgivings genuinely and properly expressed in Committee, for which I had some sympathy.
I shall not rehearse the arguments deployed in Committee. I say only, in summary, that the provision of Welsh-medium education varies considerably from area to area. In Committee, I quoted examples of people in certain parts of Wales who had considerable difficulty in getting Welsh-medium education within a reasonable distance of

their homes. That has aroused considerable passion in some parts of Wales. Of course, in other parts good and improving provision is being made.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are parts of Wales—his constituency may be one—where it is equally difficult to get English-medium education, especially at infant and primary level, within a reasonable distance of home?

Mr. Wigley: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not understand Gwynedd's education policy on primary schools. Its objective is to get every child to be thoroughly bilingual by the age of 11. If that is the hon. Gentleman's objective in what he is advocating in Dyfed, I salute that. There is a campaign in Dyfed by a small minority of parents who want to avoid any Welsh-medium education that would go anywhere near to making their children bilingual by the age of 11.

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Wigley: I suspect that this will be a dialogue.

Mr. Wiliams: I had not intended to become involved in the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in infant education, children aged between five and seven should have the right to learn to read and write in their mother tongue—that is, the language of the home? If that applies to Welsh speakers, it must also apply to English speakers if we are to uphold the principle of equality to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Wigley: There should be a facility within Welsh education to make all children thoroughly bilingual as quickly as possible. The most practical way to do that is by considerable immersion at an early age. Children aged five to seven are like blotting paper and they can pick up languages easily.

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wigley: No. I am sorry: the hon. Gentleman can make this own speech in due course. I am not being discourteous; I do not want to detain the House.
Children have the ability to pick up languages at an early age. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of children in my constituency speak only Welsh at the ages of three and four, but learn English at five and six and are verbally thoroughly bilingual by seven.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a tremendous growth in something known as the Welsh schools movement. It operates in the non-Welsh speaking, mainly industrial areas in Wales. A great deal of progress has been made in, for example, the old areas of Glamorgan, especially Flintshire. Great progress has been made in Cardiff, where Welsh-medium education is mushrooming at a tremendous rate. Although the parents are non-Welsh speaking, they want their children to be educated in Welsh, not just as a subject but through the medium of Welsh.
The way in which that has succeeded academically as well as socially has overcome some of the worries that I know many hon. Members had 10 or 15 years ago about building ghetto societies. We are not doing that. Society moves on in some of the English speaking industrial valleys in which a large proportion of young people—perhaps even 30 or 40 per cent.—are educated through the


medium of Welsh. That is the key to the ability of the Welsh language to gain tremendous new ground in this generation.
Such education should be available within a reasonable distance of every person's home. People should not have to travel 20 or 30 miles for it, and there certainly should not be generations of young people who did not have the opportunity at all, as, regrettably, happened in some parts of West Glamorgan. I hope that things are moving forward there now, but for a long time young people have missed the opportunity. Thousands of young people in Wales who could have been fluently bilingual by now, and whose parents wanted them to be, were denied that chance because of the lack of a statutory right.
I accept that the new clause is based on the statutory rights approach. I know that the Government do not like that approach for the Bill, but I do not see how, with a statutory right, it would be possible to safeguard the position through the Welsh Language Board.
Indeed, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the Welsh Language Board and local authorities could be brought into tremendous conflict. I hope that that will not happen, but I can see the seeds of the possibility, and I would rather see a statutory right through local education authorities, with the Welsh Language Board being there to advise, to help and to come in where there are real difficulties. The basic responsibility should be laid on LEAs.
No doubt the Minister will say that it will be possible to develop schemes between the Welsh Language Board and local education authorities, and I accept that. But we heard in an earlier debate what happens when there is an agreement between two such bodies. The agreement can be two or three years down the line and still the Government do not accept it. They may have some reason best known to themselves why an agreement between two bodies in Wales is not accepted in Whitehall and Westminster. Provisions for schemes such as those suggested by the Government do not even begin to meet the requirement. There should be a statutory right in the Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: My amendment No. 11 has been grouped with the new clause, and I do not know whether I would have tabled it had I known that the two would be taken together, because I want to support whole heartedly the idea of a statutory right for parents to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh.
At the same time, for reasons that I have already explained and shall not repeat, I am deeply reluctant to allow the Welsh Language Board to become involved in the detailed development of education policy within communities, especially communities such as mine, which are sensitively balanced, with much genuine effort being made to achieve that balance and to avoid division and friction. I have a feeling that, accidentally—I do not mean this in any offensive way—the Welsh Language Board could bumble into such situations and create problems where there could have been harmony. I oppose the considerable extension of the board's activities into the details of local education authority policies.
As a quid pro quo, I certainly support the new clause, which gives parents a statutory right. I consider it far better to proceed by giving people rights and letting them exercise them. If those rights are denied people must have proper procedures for obtaining redress through the Secretary of State or the courts. The Welsh Language

Board should not become involved in the arguments and be dragged in, whether it wants to intervene or not. One repeatedly sees people using the board as a means of appeal when arguments are taking place locally. Such a role would damage the integrity and status of the board, and the support that it should receive.
I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for withdrawing his original new clause as a result of representations from other members of the Committee, because subsection (2) was not then part of it. Now the new clause is balanced, and ensures that the resources issue will be tackled when we grant the right. I support the new clause, and if a vote is forced I shall vote for it, but I hope that that will be taken in conjunction with my considerable reservations about the prospect of the Welsh Language Board's having a major role and bring able to intervene in the development of individual LEA policies on the Welsh language.
Without opening too many divisions among ourselves, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) that in my overwhelmingly English-speaking community my children were brought up and educated through the medium of Welsh. I cannot remember my wife or myself having taught them English, yet I am happy to say that my eldest son has graduated in English, my second son achieved a grade A in English at A-level, and I hope that my daughter will achieve something similar a year hence.
Whatever pressures my hon. Friend may be under, let me tell him that, even in communities such as mine, we have managed to bring up children bilingually without the fear that they would not learn English as a result. Young children have an enormous capacity to learn and enjoy languages, and I believe that teaching them more than one language makes them more fluent, and more interested in sounds and in language itself.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend's wife, who was born just outside my constituency, is from a Welsh-speaking background. That makes a vital contribution. It is much easier for children if they are educated in their mother tongue, so it was entirely natural for my hon. Friend's children to go to a Welsh-speaking school.
My hon. Friend referred to pressures that I may be under. I am under no pressure at all—or at least, the only pressure is my desire for there to be equality between the Welsh and the English languages in my constituency and throughout Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that my hon. Friend's case will hold water. I do not want to point the finger, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State, sends his children to a school where everything is taught through the medium of Welsh, although I believe that neither parent is Welsh speaking. It would not have been possible to have made children bilingual in Merthyr unless such commitments had been made. The process did no damage whatever to the standard achieved in English. We should not set up bogeys, because they do not exist.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Of course I am delighted, and I know very well, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has chosen a Welsh medium of education in the Rhymney valley for his daughter. However, the difference between that situation and the problems in my constituency is that my hon. Friend the


Member for Caerphilly was in a position to choose. It was a matter of voluntary choice, whereas in my constituency, and in large areas of Dyfed and Gwynedd, parents have no choice other than Welsh-medium education. Surely that cannot be right.

Mr. Rowlands: It is sad that for a long time parents could not choose to have their children brought up bilingually. If I lived in Dyfed and my children went to a school that taught all subjects in Welsh, I am sure that they would also be taught English, and would emerge effectively bilingual—unless that did not happen for other educational reasons. I did not wish to start too much of an argument with my hon. Friend; I simply wanted to draw to his attention the experience of a household in an overwhelmingly English-speaking community.
I support the new clause, and I hope that the Welsh Language Board heeds the warnings that we gave in Committee, which I repeated through the vehicle of amendment No. 11. The board should tread warily when dealing with the detailed aspects of LEA policy. If it does not tread carefully, it could create tensions within the local communities. So long as the board listens to the messages that we have sent from this Chamber and from the Committee, we will have a sensible and balanced approach to these issues. We should support the idea of a right of the kind suggested in the new clause.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I also support the new clause. The advantage of a right is that it creates a corresponding duty. In my constituency, and throughout Powys, bilingual education has not been available in a Welsh-medium school. That has caused great anger among a large group of parents. The situation is simply unacceptable.
8.30 pm
The issue has been considered time and again by the local education authority of Powys county council. However, because there is no duty to make the provision, it has fudged the issue time and again. That is not acceptable. As a result, the anger of the growing group of parents who wish to have their children educated at a secondary level through the medium of Welsh has grown. A quite unnecessary political issue has arisen.
At the moment, a solution has at least been found for part of Powys. A proposal has been put forward for a building, which has been used as a special school, to be created as a Welsh medium unit for the first three, or possibly four, years of the Caereinion high school at Llanfair Caereinion. The matter is now before the Secretary of State for a decision. I want to take the opportunity of tonight's debate to urge the Secretary of State to reach a decision as soon as possible.
The last schools decision from the same valley—the Banw valley—which went to the Secretary of State took 10 months. That related to an application, which was eventually granted, by a primary school for grant-maintained status. I hope very much that the decision to which I referred a few moments ago can be reached in 10 weeks rather than 10 months. Even 10 weeks would seem more than long enough.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that Powys county council's proposal to the Secretary of State may well resolve certain issues in

relation to the provision of Welsh-medium education in the hon. and learned Gentleman's part of Powys. However, given the immense geographical size of Powys, it will not be of any real assistance to parents in my part of Powys who are also seeking Welsh-medium education.

Mr. Carlile: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was about to say that, even if that provision is granted and the application by Powys is allowed, that will not meet all the needs of my constituents in the part of Powys which is Montgomeryshire.
I should be much happier to see an entirely new Welsh medium school established somewhere reasonably accessible—perhaps near Newtown—to all those children who wish to be educated through the medium of Welsh or whose parents wish that for them.
The problem which the new clause raises is that if Powys decided to make such a provision, and it might well decide to do that on the merits of the case, it could not afford to do so. The Government should shoulder the responsibility of meeting the cost of that provision throughout Wales, or at least throughout those parts of Wales where it is reasonable so to do. However, in saying "those parts of Wales where it is reasonable so to do", I do not mean for a moment to dilute my belief that every parent in Wales should have the right to choose the medium of Welsh for the education of their children.
I would go so far as to say that this is one of the key issues in the Bill. Many of us will determine how we vote on Third Reading after listening to the Government's considered response on this point. If the Government refuse to give Welsh official status, as they have already refused tonight, and if they refuse to give a right, which sounds pretty reasonable, for children to be educated through the medium of Welsh, what is left in the Bill? All that is left is a Welsh Language Board which will no doubt produce some interesting schemes, many of which I suspect it will not be possible to enforce, and which will not have created a single worthwhile right which a single citizen in Wales can enforce through the courts of law. If that is what we are left with, it will look pretty threadbare.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. However, having heard the contributions of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I felt that I had to point out once again that the socialist principle should apply.
I strongly support the spirit of the new clause and the opportunity for Welsh-medium education. The clause is fine and I have no problem with it. However, it does not carry with it the principle of equality. Throughout Wales, there should be the opportunity for Welsh-medium education and for English-medium education.
The Minister of State is aware of our problems in Dyfed. Those problems also pertain to Gwynedd. If English-speaking parents move to our rural heartlands of Llanelli, Llandovey and Lampeter from Swansea, Neath or Merthyr, they will find that the local primary school is mainly Welsh medium. It teaches children to read and write in the Welsh language.
Parents want to help their children, especially their infant children, when they are at primary school. It is impossible for English-speaking parents to help their


children to learn to read and write if the primary school teaches in the Welsh medium. That takes away a vital part of parenting and part of the enjoyment of being a parent.
It is amazing that that has happened. Over the past few years, there has been a rolling programme in Dyfed which has affected the rural areas. One hundred and eighty eight primary schools in Dyfed are mainly Welsh medium. That is fine so long as the children come from Welsh-speaking homes or if the parents choose that for their children.
I admire my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). Although they are not Welsh speaking, they have decided to send their children to Welsh-medium primary schools. However, that should not be compulsory. In large areas of Gwynedd and Dyfed we effectively have compulsory Welsh-medium infant education. That cannot be right for children.
It was said earlier this evening that children pick up languages like blotting paper. That is simply not true. It is an absolute myth. Coming from a Welsh-speaking home, I was brought up with Welsh and English and I learnt them quite easily. However, I had the advantage of bilingual parents—they spoke both Welsh and English. Children can readily be brought up bilingual in a bilingual home. However, it is otherwise quite difficult and especially for average or below average children.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred in Committee to Europe and to trilingualism and quadralingualism and to a tremendous facility with language. That is not the case across Europe. It applies only to very small minority groups. Nearly all children in France are taught through the medium of French. Very few French people speak English or German. The same applies in Germany where there is one dominant language.

Mr. Wigley: There are millions of people in France whose first language is not French—

Mr. Alan W. Williams: No, a small minority.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, there are millions. A standard work refers to a figure of in excess of 10 million people who had a language other than French as their first language. A country like Holland experiences several languages running together because it is at the crossroads of Europe. When the Dutch football team was competing in the World cup finals, six of the 11 players could give interviews in four languages. There are times when some hon. Members cannot give an interview in one language. That is the reality of multilingualism.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Caernarfon has started to believe some of his mythology. It is a case of repetition after repetition and then he believes myths. The vast majority of people in Europe are monolingual. It should be a fundamental right for all children to learn to read and write in the language of their homes—in their mother tongue—so that their parents can help them. That right is not available in large areas of Dyfed and Gwynedd. My difficulty is that the new clause does not relate to problems in my constituency.

Mr. Rowlands: It might sound a banal comparison, but if I were a younger parent, and we moved to Wokingham, I would not have expected my children to be able to learn in a Welsh-medium school. Therefore, if I as a parent lived in Dyfed or Gwynedd where the major provision is Welsh, surely I would have to accept that as a natural constraint

because I had chosen to move there and accept the education facilities that are available there. My hon. Friend is making a wrong case.

Mr. Williams: Some schools in my constituency have been categorised as mainly Welsh medium, and 90 per cent. of the children come from English-speaking homes. In most of my constituency, 50 per cent. of people are from Welsh-speaking homes and 50 per cent. are from English-speaking homes. In rural areas, there is the deliberate exclusion of the English language between the ages of five and seven. [Interruption.] That is the case. The hon. Member for Caernarfon might have convulsions at the thought of that, but it is the reality.
Even though I support the spirit of the new clause, when there is no English-speaking education for many of my constituents, it does not address the problem of the Welsh language in education in my constituency. If the clause had been redrafted with the Welsh medium and the English available, it would have included the concept of equality.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon voted with us in the first Division this evening. We in Wales want a status for the Welsh language in Wales that is no less than the status of English, and the principle of equal status and equal validity. That is a two-sided coin, and hon. Members must accept that. Although we want the availability of Welsh-medium education throughout Wales, and I support that, we must also have English-medium education throughout Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about the appropriateness of the Welsh Language Board vis-a-vis local education authorities. He is right. Local education authorities carry the primary responsibility. It is a little odd to see education introduced in one new clause in respect of a 20-clause Bill.
Hon. Members must think more about this matter. We in Wales need to examine our education system in total and not just automatically adopt what is happening in England. We need a separate education Bill for Wales. Such a Bill could cover primary, secondary, further and higher education and find a place for the Welsh language.
I should like equality to prevail throughout our education system. That means the availability of the Welsh medium in infant, primary and secondary education throughout Wales, together with the availability of English medium education.
If the hon. Member for Caernarfon presses the new clause to a Division, I will not be able to support him because the principle of equality is absent. I would not vote against it, but I would abstain.

Mr. Flynn: I will not repeat what was said in Committee when we discussed this matter at length. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was an isolated figure in Committee, as he will be in the House, and as he is throughout most of Wales for his point of view on this issue. The reason is that he is fighting against the commonsense approach that has been adopted in every corner of Wales from Monmouth to Caernarfon.
No one has suggested that the same rules for the language—the same conditions—should apply for every part of Wales, just as no one would suggest that everyone


in Monmouth could go to a school on the border and demand Welsh education. They would not get anywhere if they did that.
In Carmarthen, a certain line has been pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). A tiny group of people have written to us—they are not the most rational letters that we have received. My hon. Friend has opposed the policy of the county council.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend refers to that tiny group of people. Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), because he referred to a similar matter, that when in Carmarthen town, Lampeter, Cardigan, Llanelli and towns in Dyfed there is a free choice between Welsh-medium education and English-medium education, the overwhelming majority of Welsh-speaking people choose Welsh-medium education and the large majority of English-speaking people choose English-medium education. It is not a tiny number. In rural areas, thousands of people are being deprived of the opportunity to educate their children in the language of the home.

Mr. Flynn: The tiny group I am referring to is called Education First. It is a campaigning group. I was about to say that elected representatives of the people of Carmarthen on Dyfed county council have selected a language policy which they regarded as right for that complex county. It was a different policy in different areas—just as it would have to be in every other county of Wales that has strong Welsh-speaking areas and areas in which Welsh is not the first language. My hon. Friend is trying to impose absolute equality on education, which is totally impractical.
We have accepted that we cannot ask Monmouth district council to do things that Dwyfor district council is doing. We have accepted the complex linguistic pattern of Wales. It is not sensible to talk about a socialist principle to do it that way. It is a very crude argument that my hon. Friend is applying which, in practice, cannot work either in education or in any other aspect of the language. We must temper what we are trying to do with much common sence and an understanding of the linguistic map of Wales.

Mr. Morgan: The House will be pleased to know that I intend to be very brief and that I do not intend to enter the hornets' nest that is raised by new clause 10 which relates to the transverse rights of English-speaking people in Welsh-speaking areas; nor do I intend to try to settle the problems of the Bretons and the Basques in France. I wish briefly to refer to a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which was the function or duty that will be given to the Welsh Language Board and how it relates to the duties of the Curriculum Council for Wales, which we will discuss on Monday.
In case the Minister of State has not seen it, I refer to the advertisement for the chief executive for the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, although we are encouraged to refer to it by its Welsh acronym of ACAC. The Minister of State has already claimed not to have seen one document. I do not want to embarass him, but I am sure that he reads The Sunday Times and has checked the advertisement that was. I

suppose, partially issued in his name, although it has come out through the PA Consulting Group on behalf of the Government to select the new chief executive, on the presumption that the Education Bill will pass through Parliament. The advertisement states that the ACAC
"will be, subject to the passage of the Education Bill through Parliament, the main central agency in Wales for taking forward the National Curriculum"—
That is fair enough—there is no problem there. The advertisement then says:
"and developing Welsh language education".
One assumes that it is not simply confined to the teaching of Welsh as a core curriculum subject in Welsh schools; otherwise that is what it would have said.
Presumably, education through the Welsh medium is included. That is confirmed by the Welsh translation of the version where it refers to the duties of the ACAC as "Datblygu Addysg Gymraeg". That takes it into the area of Welsh language education generally, not merely the subject of Welsh as taught in schools—literature and language, as it were. Presumably it will be Welsh language education generally, including Welsh learner courses and, obviously, the way in which the Welsh language is used to teach physics and biology or any other subject that is taught in a school through the Welsh medium.
That raises the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: which quango will do that job? Will we be subjected to turf contests between the Welsh Language Board and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales over who will have the last word on Welsh language education matters, assuming that Welsh language education is not simply confined to the teaching of Welsh as a core curriculum subject?
Before the Education Bill comes back to the House on Monday, we should be clear about questioning whether it will be the Welsh Language Board, because it was not excluded. Indeed, in Committee, the Minister said that the board will be heavily involved in looking after the interests of education through the Welsh medium, but apparently the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales has been given the job. I hope that the Minister, on receipt of the advice that he is always able to get on such matters, will clarify the position before we proceed any further.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The debate has ranged widely and I shall try to be as much to the point as I possibly can. We all agree on the tremendous value of Welsh-medium education and the progress that has been made. What we tend to forget is that that progress has been made under the Education Act 1944. The strength of that Act is that it treats the English and Welsh-medium sectors evenhandedly. My concern about new clause 10 is that, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) pointed out, it does not deal with the two languages even-handedly.
The Bill is about treating English and Welsh on a basis of equality. I do not believe that we would be treating the English and Welsh-medium sectors of education on the basis of equality if local education authorities were placed under a duty such as that in new clause 10 with regard to Welsh-medium education without there being a comparable duty concerning the provision of English-medium education.
The terms of the 1944 Act are admirably suited to reflect the difficult issues that can surround the most effective delivery of Welsh-medium education alongside the English-medium sector. The 1944 Act does not seek to


impose the same pattern of education in all parts of Wales. As I explained in Committee, it requires that, to the extent that it is compatible with efficient instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable expenditure, pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. We propose that that statutory duty will remain unchanged as a result of the Bill. The success of Welsh-medium education in areas such as Mid Glamorgan is an indication that the 1944 Act is admirably suited to governing the conduct of LEAs in this respect.
The change that we propose to introduce is that the Welsh language scheme that LEAs will be required to produce should include their policy on the provision of Welsh-medium education. In preparing their scheme, LEAs and any school funding council that may be established will need to have regard to the guidelines that the board may produce on the subject and consult parents. Our intention is that the changes should ensure that, while recognising that the issue will often involve difficult and sensitive issues, the delivery of Welsh-medium education should be as closely attuned to the reasonable expectation of parents as possible.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was anxious about the board's role with regard to education. While granting the board a role in education, we are not advocating that it should become responsible for the delivery of Welsh-medium education. That responsibility will remain with LEAs and any school funding council that is established in due course.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I will spell it out for the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way if he wants me to. The board will have an important role to play alongside the LEA, but will not take the place of the LEA. For example, we do not foresee the board becoming involved in detailed issues concerning the delivery of Welsh-medium education in specific schools. That will be a matter of day-to-day management for LEAs and schools.
The board will simply not be in a position to become involved in such local issues. Its role will be to look at LEA proposals for Welsh-medium education covering the authority as a whole. It is only at that strategic level that sensible decisions can be made about whether the Welsh and English languages are being dealt with on the basis of equality.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister started by telling us that an LEA or school will have to submit to the Welsh Language Board a scheme for the provision of education in the Welsh medium and the board must then approve that scheme.
That will inevitably mean that the board will get involved in the provision of education in a community. The moment the board gets involved, parents who are dissatisfied with the provision of Welsh-medium education will appeal to the board, and the Minister and the board will get dragged into that issue. Whatever the Minister says, the danger of that is considerable, and his explanation does not give me any comfort.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I reiterate that the scheme will not work out as the hon. Gentleman anticipates because the strength of the board is that it will be able to develop a breadth of perspective concerning the position of the Welsh language across all phases of education. That

breadth of perspective can only serve to compliment the roles of the bodies that are charged with the delivery of Welsh-medium education.

Mr. Wigley: I listened to the Minister's description of how the board will have only a strategic responsibility for the provision of Welsh-medium education. How, then, will it in practice sort out the kind of problem that has gone on for years in Swansea, where it has been impossible to get Welsh-medium education?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I said that the board would work out with each local education authority, in the light of the guidelines that will be approved by the House, the precise scheme under which Welsh-medium education will be provided. In so far as such schemes will be matters of negotiation, arrangement and agreement between the board and the LEA, I can certainly foresee benefits emerging.
One must also remember that these schemes will be the result of consultation. We shall accept a Labour-inspired amendment later which provides for extensive consultation. It will affect non-Welsh-speaking as well as Welsh-speaking parents. We are looking to the board to achieve a beneficial influence in the local authority context to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The board has not simply a strategic role, but real strength, power and influence.
Without, therefore, interfering with local decision making in any way, the board will have an important role to play in education. It will be important that the board exercises that role with considerable sensitivity. In recognising the importance of the issue, I am confident that that is what the board will do.
9 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the advertisement in The Sunday Times for a chief executive for the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. The role of that authority, which we shall discuss further, is to develop the curriculum and carry out assessment in Wales. The authority will certainly have a role in developing Welsh as a subject in the national curriculum, both as a first and as a second language. It will have a role also in relation to assessment in Welsh and other subjects. It will also be responsible for the provision of teaching materials for use in Welsh schools. We may well have an opportunity of returning to the detailed provisions, powers and responsibilities of the authority.

Mr. Morgan: The exact phrase used in the advertisement is
the development of Welsh language education".
The Minister may be telling the House that the advertisement is inaccurate and that PA Consulting Group should be given a rap over the knuckles for perhaps misunderstanding its instructions.
Surely "Welsh language education" would be construed by most people as going much further than simply Welsh as a curriculum subject, whether first or second language and whether curriculum or assessment. To most people "Welsh language education" would include education through the medium of Welsh, would it not?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes and, arguably, "Welsh language education" would extend right through further education into higher education, as the hon. Gentleman suggested earlier. We must remember that the hon. Gentleman is


referring to an advertisement for a particular post. Those who may be suitable to respond to that advertisement will know the proximate role of ACAC.
It will be for ACAC, the Welsh Language Board, the LEAs and all others concerned with education in Wales to work out their relationships. Certainly the authority will be expected to produce a scheme in much the same way as any other non-departmental public body will be expected to produce a scheme in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am far from convinced that the provisions of the Bill will answer the weakness of the Education Act 1944, on which he based so much of his argument.
In numerous places in Wales—although not a majority—it is impossible to get education through the medium of Welsh within a reasonable distance. There has not been a positive drive to do that. If the board succeeds in getting guidelines that meet that requirement, and thence local strategies, and can persuade people of the need, that is fine, but we know that if the Government resist the new clause—as they seem to do—there will be no statutory rights. Everything depends on good will, which may turn to ill will, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, and all sorts of in-fighting may result.
I hope to goodness that the provision of educational schemes in the Bill achieves what the Minister wants, but I have reservations, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, unless one has rights that create duties, there is no certainty that that will happen and no way of ensuring that it does.
I shall respond briefly to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Our objective in wanting Welsh-medium education to work thoroughly and to maintain the natural schools that provide Welsh in Gwynedd and Dyfed and parts of other counties is to create an integrated community; a community that is not divided by language, and where young people can speak both languages and, therefore, can apply for any job and take part fully in that community.
I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Carmarthen that he is campaigning to ensure that the non-Welsh-speaking children in non-Welsh-speaking homes have the access to the language that gives them the opportunity to play a full part in the community in which they are brought up. There is a danger of producing an apartheid approach; of creating two societies growing up side by side, and never the twain shall meet. At one time, there was a fear of that in the south Wales valleys, but it has not turned out to be justified.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wigley: No. I am bringing the debate to an end.
That apartheid approach is a recipe for disaster, which is why I am so encouraged that few members of the Labour party go down that road.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

OBJECTIVE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD

.(1) The Board shall have the objective of maintaining and expanding the use of the Welsh language.

(2) The Board shall—

(a) advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning the Welsh language;
(b) promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in public business;
(c) advise persons exercising functions of a public nature in Wales on

(i) the use of the Welsh language in their dealings with the public; and
(ii) how they may best give effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice, the status of the Welsh language shall not be less than that of the English language; and

(d) advise other persons on the voluntary use of the Welsh language in their dealings with the public.

(3) Subject to the following provisions, the Board may do anything which is incidental or conducive to the performance of its functions, and may in particular—

(a) make grants and loans and give guarantees;
(b) make charges for the provision of advice or other services;
(c) accept gifts of money or other property.

(4) The Board shall not—

(a) make a grant or loan,
(b) give a guarantee, or
(c) acquire or dispose of any interest in land,
except with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury'.—[Mr. Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 23, in page 1, clause 3, leave out from beginning of line 17 to end of line 24 on page 2.
No. 18, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

(d) formulate and publish from time to time guidelines and codes of good practice as to the use of Welsh in commerce and other fields of activity as it may think fit;
(e) provide translation and interpretation services for Government departments, public bodies or other persons and organisations;
(f) commission and carry out research relating to the Welsh language and publish information obtained thereby;
(g) advertise and otherwise promote its activities'.

Mr. Morgan: This is an attempt by our team of parliamentary draftsmen to redraft new clause 3 completely and replace it with a fallback position. We half anticipated that the Government would not make any concessions or movement towards us on the issue of official status in new clause 1. We thought that if that were to happen, the only way to put some meat on the somewhat threadbare—to mix my metaphors—structure of the Bill would be to insert a set of goals and objectives for the board by completely taking out the existing clause 3 and replacing it. We have retained some of the powers to give grants and so on that were in the original clause 3, but have said what the board is supposed to do.
The Bill will succeed or fail on the basis of the Minister of State's answer when he is asked, when eventually he gives up the reins of office, "What did you do for the Welsh language, Daddy?" As he may already be a granddaddy, he will probably be a great-granddaddy by then. He will


say, "I set up a quango for it". We want him also to be able to say what the quango was supposed to do. That is not clear from the Bill because the quango is not given any objectives. It is given a function, but it cannot test that function against an overall objective.
Our new clause states that
the Board shall have the objective of maintaining and expanding the use of the Welsh language.
We want the Welsh language to remain a common language of fluent use in the countryside and in some of the few remaining industrial areas of Wales—in the anthracite coalfields, the tin plate areas of west Wales, the former slate quarrying areas of north-west Wales, and so on—where it may not be much of a written language.
We also wanted to expand the use of the Welsh language by adding written fluency as well as public and private sector use of the language. Clearly, in the spirit of the Bill, private sector use would have to be voluntary.
I mention that because page 50, paragraph 4.47, of the White Paper on public expenditure, command 2215, boasts about the constructive activities of the Welsh Language Board and says:
It has achieved significant progress in a number of areas including the "Iaith Gwaith" (Working Welsh) scheme which encourages the use of Welsh in the workplace and the "CYSILL" Welsh-language computer spellcheck project.
Both those projects—mainly the first but to an extent the second—are of enormous interest to the private sector. But as the Bill makes no mention of the private sector we have added a reference to it and said that it should be able voluntarily to be included. The Welsh Language Board would therefore not be acting outside its statutory powers by getting involved with the private sector. Although there would be no compulsion on the private sector, the board would have every encouragement to spend its resources on schemes in the spirit of the "Iaith Gwaith" and "CYSILL" projects, about which the Government thought it worth while to boast in their most recent reference to why they were spending money on the Welsh Language Board while it remains non-statutory.
New clause 11 is infinitely superior to clause 3 because it gives an objective and a statutory basis to activities involving the private sector.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for introducing the new clause because it does at least endeavour to establish objectives for the language board.
I started out as a fan of the Bill, but, as the Report stage has proceeded, I have grown increasingly disillusioned by it. One of the reasons why disillusionment has crept in is that the Bill asks for a legislative blank cheque, which I have grave doubts about whether we should grant. For example, the Bill empowers public bodies to form schemes, but we have no idea of the character of those schemes. The Bill contains no illustrative ideas or draft models of the schemes. The schemes have no boundaries or content and we do not know the principles on which they are to be based. They must follow guidelines, but we have no idea what the parameters of the guidelines will be because they are not defined in the Bill.
The Bill also establishes a board, but we do not know how much it will cost because Ministers have refused to give even an estimate. Thus the Bill will establish a board costing an unknown sum annually to draft guidelines to be followed by public bodies drawing up schemes. But we

know the shape and size of neither the guidelines nor the schemes. All that we know about the board is that 15 persons will sit on it.
It is time that the Minister gave us a clearer indication of the nature of those schemes and guidelines. Exactly what will the board propose? Until the Committee stage, I thought that I knew what the board was supposed to do because the invaluable document, "Guidelines to the Public Sector", gives an idea of the character of the present language board's activities. Based on the sensible, well-balanced view about the role and future role of the language and its promotion, I thought that I could support that excellent idea. We do not know if that is the sort of objective of the new statutory language board. We discover more and more that it will wander into all sorts of areas of activity that, in my opinion, will cause the board a lot of problems and will create a great deal of tension around its work.
9.15 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly said that we must better define the board's objectives, I shall ask the Minister two or three simple questions and this time hope for answers. What will be the likely average annual cost of the board? I asked him that question over and over again in Committee. If he cannot give us an estimate, will he tell us what estimate the present Welsh Language Board has given him? I understand that it has estimated the costs and has presented them to him. We are entitled to know what the Welsh Language Board, as the most authoritative institution on that matter, has estimated. Will the Minister give us that figure?
We are told that the Welsh Language Board will take over the responsibility for allocating some of the available grants, as set out under clause 3. Will the Minister specifically confirm that, under the provisions of clause 3, power to allocate grants will be given to the Welsh Language Board? As I understand it, most of the grants that we call section 26 money under the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1991 and the bodies that receive them are listed on page 49 of the White Paper on Government expenditure. In total, £2·7 million of grants are listed which are given to a variety of bodies and organisations. Is the intention that the decision on who should receive those grants listed and their disbursement will be transferred to the Welsh Language Board? What percentage of the money that goes to the Welsh Books Council, for example, will be handled by the Welsh Language Board? Will the board be able to make such decisions?
The allocation of grants is an important function. Are we to transfer what is currently a Welsh Office responsibility lock, stock and barrel? If we are not, which grants that are currently paid under section 26 are to be administered and disbursed by the Welsh Language Board, which will therefore have the discretion to change and move such disbursements? Those are vital questions about the nature and functions of the Welsh Language Board. We were not given any answers in Committee and we deserve them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has done a great service in trying to force the Minister to provide a better clarification of the character, nature and scope of the board.

Sir Wyn Roberts: New clause 11 largely replicates the terms of new clause 3. There are some significant


differences that cause me concern, especially the recasting of the board's main duty. The alternative duties contained in the new clause serve to confuse what we intend the board to do and what we hope will happen to the Welsh language as a result.
The board's function of promoting and facilitating the use of Welsh has been deliberately cast in the most flexible terms possible. There is no restriction on the board's function, so that seems to be a fair description of the contribution that we can fairly expect it to make. It does nothing to clarify the board's legal duties to confuse it with matters that are ultimately outside its control.
We may all agree that one of the board's objectives is to maintain and expand the use of the Welsh language. That is not something that we can sensibly reflect on the face of the Bill. We shall, of course, want to agree objectives for the board and those will be matters to be discussed in the context of the board's corporate plan. We shall also need to be able to monitor whether the objectives have been achieved over a reasonable period. The outstanding characteristic of the objective proposed in the new clause is that it could be monitored only over a very long period. It would, therefore, be of little use in holding the board to account for its actions. The new clause does nothing to clarify the board's main duties and powers. It serves rather to confuse the board's actions with what we might hope would be the outcome of those actions.
As I made clear in Committee, I am pleased to be able to agree that each of the elements referred to in amendment No. 18 is an activity with which the board should have the power to become involved, although we see the board's role in translation and interpretation as that of an enabler and facilitator, rather than as a provider. The amendment could introduce legal uncertainty about whether the board had the power to undertake other promotional activities that are not specifically listed in clause 3(3). Keeping the list in the clause as short as possible ensures that whatever uncertainty may arise on that point is kept to an absolute minimum, thus allowing the board maximum flexibility.
To further that flexibility, clause 3 is deliberately restricted to listing the board's main promotional and advisory functions. That will ensure that there will be no legislative obstacles to the board's promoting the language whenever or wherever it is spoken. That reflects the arm's length nature that we intend should be a feature of the relationship between the board and the Government.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked me some specific questions. I understand that the board's estimate has been submitted to my officials. Of course, we have to study those estimates and the eventual allocation to the board will be our decision. It is too early in the day for me to give any further information on that point.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has an estimate. I do not seek to tie him down, because I know that the decision is for him, his Department and the Government, but will he tell us what it is?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The board has submitted an estimate. That estimate is subject to discussion between the Welsh Office and the board. We shall have to go over it. We have not agreed it as an accepted estimate.

Mr. Rowlands: What is the estimate?

Sir Wyn Roberts: It would not be proper for me at this stage—

Mr. Rowlands: What is the estimate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that seated interventions of that kind are to be deplored, however anxious he is for an answer.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Rowlands: Why is the Minister so coy? Before we approve the Bill which will establish the board, we are entitled at least to know what is the estimate of the present Welsh Language Board. Will the Minister just tell us? We are not tying the Government to a figure. Will the Minister please tell us what the board's estimate of the cost is?

Sir Wyn Roberts: It would be misleading for me to give a figure to the House because it might raise or decrease expectations. It would be misleading because the estimate that is under discussion may bear no relationship to the eventual allocation made. I cannot go further than that at this stage.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked me about responsibility for grants. The board will inherit from the Welsh Office some of the responsibility for making grants in support of the Welsh language under section 26 of the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1991. It is envisaged that that will be a gradual inheritance to facilitate the smooth transfer to the Welsh Language Board of that important function. It is important that the Welsh Language Board learns to walk before it can run. With that in mind, the Welsh Office will for some time retain responsibility for the larger grants, including the Welsh Books Council, the National Eisteddfod, the Urdd and the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin.
The amount of money available to assist Welsh language initiatives during this year was £2·8 million, of which £2·2 million was allocated to the larger organisations. That leaves £600,000 to be distributed among the smaller grant recipients for which the board will be in future responsible.

Mr. Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

DUTY OF NOTIFIED PUBLIC BODIES TO PREPARE SCHEMES

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 45, at end insert—
'(2B) The scheme referred to in subsection (1) above shall not include measures in connection with the broadcast programmes or scheduling policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation in Wales.' 
The amendment relates to a specific piece of information of which I was not aware in Committee—an interesting document that gives the response by the Welsh Language Board to the consultation document "The Future of the BBC" that was published by the Department of National Heritage in November 1992.
In the submission by the Welsh Language Board, there are two statements which worried me. I have been consistently concerned about the degree to which the Welsh Language Board will interfere in issues for which


other organisations and bodies are statutorily responsible. Those organisations may have their own accounting procedures and degree of accountability.
Paragraph 3.1 of the document says:
clearly the Welsh Language Board would see as one of its main responsibilities that the television service broadcast by S4C is properly protected from commercial and political pressures since it plays a vital part in both the strategic development and the promotion of language.
Under what power is the Welsh Language Board seeking to intervene in an organisation that was set down in the House in statute with its own board and its own systems of accountability that go through to Ministers and to the House? What will be the function of the Welsh Language Board in that regard? Is that an agreed objective of the board and, dare I ask after today's discussions, has the Minister seen the document? If so, does he agree that that is a proper function in which the Welsh Language Board should get involved? That was in relation to S4C.
Paragraph 3.5 contains a statement with regard to BBC Wales:
The Welsh Language Board is mindful of the danger of creating a ghetto for Welsh language broadcasting which would negate the aim of creating a bilingual society in Wales. It is for this reason that the Welsh Language Board considers the totality of the BBC's programme services in Wales are its concerns, de facto and its Welsh language is its concern de jure.
What are we to make of that? The programming of BBC Wales, in both Welsh and English, is governed by its charter and its statutory responsibilities. It has its own advisory BBC council and, through that, its own chain of command and accountability through the procedures and structures laid down by the BBC. How will the Welsh Language Board establish both de facto and cle jure responsibility and supervision over BBC Wales programming?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have seen that document and it worries me. The hon. Gentleman will have seen within the document that the view expressed by the Welsh Language Board is that the functions of the controller of BBC Wales may be changed also. He will have seen paragraph 4.5, which says:
The Welsh Language Board expects the future pattern of the BBC's services in Wales through the medium of the Welsh language to be incorporated in the scheme which the BBC as a public body will be required to submit to a new statutory Welsh Language Board under the terms of the Welsh Language Bill.
I have read the Bill and I do not think that the BBC is one of the organisations covered by it. In the circumstances, what observations would the hon. Gentleman like to make about that?

Mr. Rowlands: I had not yet reached the paragraph in question—I was working my way down—but as the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to it, I should point out that it is an extremely sweeping and rather frightening statement.
Systems of control are laid down by charter, but this is an example of the WLB gaining the capacity to interfere with the fundamental responsibilities of an organisation established, in the case of the BBC by charter, and in the case of S4C by statute. The hon. Gentleman has therefore raised an important point.
As for how the BBC will get caught up by the scheme-making powers, I assume that clause 6(1)(o)

means that the Secretary of State will announce that the BBC and S4C will be expected to produce relevant schemes. If so, such schemes should certainly not involve the pattern of BBC services. That pattern and accountability for it are laid down by charter, with a clear chain of command and responsibility. We have a BBC governing body in Wales and a BBC advisory board, so how in the name of heaven does the Welsh Language Board have a right to crawl over and scrutinise the BBC's services in Wales?
I hope that the Minister will not answer me with weasel words and that he will give me an unequivocal statement to the effect that he will not endorse the right of the WLB to get involved in matters that are properly covered elsewhere by charter and in statute. I am afraid that this is another example of the WLB becoming improperly involved in issues of public life in Wales which are already provided for in other ways.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views. The views expressed by the Welsh Language Board in response to the Green Paper were those of the non-statutory board. Knowing the hon. Gentleman to be a reasonable man, I suggest that he has not, perhaps, paid enough attention to the requirement that the guidelines from which the schemes will result must be approved by the Secretary of State and must come before Parliament, when we are likely to have another opportunity of discussing the principles involved.
Of course, we would not expect the board to become involved in the detail of the BBC's scheduling policies. Including the BBC in the list of public bodies that may be required to produce schemes does not mean that the board will assume responsibility for the place of the Welsh language in the broadcasting system of Wales. The BBC's policies will remain a matter for it, determined under its charter and, after 1996, under its new charter. The board will not be able to interfere with the terms of the BBC's charter; nor will it be for the board to interfere with the BBC's obligation to provide 10 hours of programmes every week to S4C. The BBC does, however, fall into the class of bodies from which the board may require a scheme that illustrates how, in the context of its entire output, it gives effect to the principle of English and Welsh being dealt with on a basis of equality, when that is appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable. In proposing its scheme, the BBC will be able to reflect the complex nature of its responsibilities in Wales, which include its separate radio networks and television broadcast in English and Welsh.
Despite the importance and sensitivity of broadcasting, I am not persuaded that we would be justified in ruling out at this stage that the board should be excluded from that sector, but the detail of broadcasting policy will remain a matter for the BBC. It is worth underlining that it would not be the role of the board to express a view on any editorial matters. Schemes will be solely concerned with the principle of English and Welsh being dealt with on a basis of equality. To deny the board any role in that sector would be to deny the importance of broadcasting in the Government's overall policy of support for the language.
I suspect that we are all agreed on the influence that broadcasting, and television broadcasting in particular, has on any language, be it Welsh or English. Therefore, it seems only sensible that broadcasting should be included within the board's remit. I am confident that it is a task


that the board will discharge effectively, and in a way that builds on the excellent contribution that Welsh language broadcasting already makes to the well-being of the Welsh language.
In that sector, as in so many others, the board will have to be sensitive and have regard and respect also for the other contractual or statutory obligations that apply to those bodies with whom it deals.

Mr. Rowlands: I listened with great care and interest to the Minister's considered statement. I hope that the new Welsh Language Board will hear the message that we want to send out from the House, that if it treads in those sectors, it should do so warily.
As we shall have the chance to consider the guidelines when they emerge, it must be made clear to the board that such guidelines should avoid the worries and concerns that I have expressed, which arise from the language used in the consultation document or in the submission by the old Welsh Language Board. If it heeds that lesson, I hope that such a problem will not occur. However, we should give the new Welsh Language Board more than a gentle warning that if it intrudes into issues of the kind that we have raised—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) shares my queasiness—a big row will ensue. I hope that the new board will heed that message. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

APPROVAL OF GUIDELINES

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, line 7 leave out `people who speak Welsh' and insert
'members of the public who may be affected by the schemes'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 13

CONSULTATION ON PREPARATION OF SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 5, line 44 after first 'of insert 'both'.
No. 3, in page 5, line 44 after 'Welsh-speaking' insert 'and other'.
No. 5, in page 5, line 44 at end add
'who may be affected by the scheme'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 26

MEANING OF "PUBLIC BODY"

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 10, line 32 at end insert—

`( ) Where the powers conferred by this section are exercised in relation to the form of a document or a form of words, a reference in an Act or instrument to the form shall, so far as may be necessary, be construed as (or as including) a reference to the form prescribed under or by virtue of this section.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 35

REPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 14, line 27 at end insert—
`( ) In the Appendix of forms in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, in paragraph 2(a) of

the directions as to printing the ballot paper, for the words from "except" to "and the" there shall be substituted the words "except the direction to vote for one candidate only and the".'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 19, line 11, at end insert—

'1985 c. 50.


The Representation of the People Act 1985.


In Schedule 4, paragraph 85(a).'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Wigley: It is with considerable regret that I rise to explain why my hon. Friends and I will vote against Third Reading of a Bill for which we have campaigned for so long—the best part of 10 years—and in such depth. The objectives of the Bill, as we have understood them, were to create a new framework of hope for the Welsh language and to provide mechanisms that would ensure that the difficulties that have been experienced in recent years would be overcome. We are unhappy about six parts of the Bill because of the way in which the Government have failed to deal with the issues in the House of Lords, in Committee and again on Report.
The first and overwhelming problem was the subject of an earlier debate—official status. There has been pressure from all directions on the Government on that. There is no doubt about the will of Wales. The chairman of the Welsh Language Board—a Government appointee, on whose work the Bill is based, and whose period of office is coming to an end—said in a letter to us about official status for the Welsh language:
We believe that this should be stated in totally specific terms in the Bill. If it is not included, the debate will continue in Wales, quite rightly, about the failure of the Government to act on this matter—and that debate would be totally understandable—and this would devalue everything else which otherwise would be possible under this legislation. This can only mean that the Welsh Language Board will be under a disadvantage from the very start.
I pay tribute to the Welsh Language Board—to John Elfed Jones, to Winston Roddick for the work that he has done on the legal side, and to the chief officer, John Walter Jones, for his work. The Bill has let them down and I feel sorry for them. The central question of status, on which the Archbishop of Wales wrote to the Secretary of State only a few days ago, requesting a Government rethink, has not been dealt with.
There is then the issue of rights, and particularly rights to education, another subject on which we touched. The Bill has not provided rights for anyone other than the Secretary of State and the Government. There are no additional rights for Welsh speakers. The Bill has not given statutory rights on which people can base a claim to use the Welsh language. That is a major weakness in the Bill.
We have already had a debate on juries and the need for juries that understand what is transacted and spoken in courts. We have debated race relations and we exposed the way in which the Government have not tackled that


problem. After two years of discussion between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, the Government have not been able to introduce the change in legislation that both those bodies, and the people of Wales, want.
A matter that we discussed in Committee and that was debated at length in the other place was that part of the private sector which provides public services, including telephone, water and electricity services. We expected that those essential services would be included in the Bill, but they are not. There is no guarantee that information on the forms will be in Welsh. There are schemes and a bureaucratic mechanism that can go on and on, but that lack of a guarantee in the Bill is a missed opportunity.
I would rather that we came back with a Bill in another form in the next parliamentary year than put on the statute book now something that we shall no doubt be told has to last for another 25 years, with all those central weaknesses. The Welsh Language Board will find it immensely difficult to do its work when it is not underpinned by any principle, any right, any guarantees. There is a vacuum at the centre of the Bill where they should be.
I feel sorry for the Minister because he has undertaken a great amount of work on the Bill.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should not feel sorry for me. I am the one who is sorry to hear him say what he proposes to do. Does he not realise that the Bill is an enormous advance for Welsh-speaking people and that he is risking that benefit to them by voting the way in which he intends to?

Mr. Wigley: I note the right hon. Gentleman's anger and I understand it. He has put an enormous amount of emotional commitment into the Bill and has tried to get a consensus. No doubt a consensus could have been reached, but he is a captive member of a Government that have little knowledge of what is going on in Wales and he has been unable to get his own way on matters such as status, on which he had based so much of his own hopes. Had he succeeded there, he could have got the unanimity that I think was available in Wales to support the consensus across party lines.
We made it clear at the start that we were looking for basic things to be added to the Bill as it went through Parliament—the sort of things that the Minister promised to the Welsh Language Board in December when its members were on the point of resigning because the Bill was so weak. These things were not forthcoming, in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons.
Then we had the Bill in Committee—a Committee packed with nine Tory Members from English constituencies to make sure that they got the majority in everything. The 70-odd amendments and the 20 or 30 new clauses that were put forward were just steam-rollered out of existence, with not an inch being given on any of them.
I do not hold this against the right hon. Member for Conwy, no matter how angry he may be with me, but there is sadness about the opportunity that has been lost. I do not know whether, by doing anything else, he could have persuaded the Government to do the things that the people of Wales want. All that we know now is that the Bill is woefully inadequate to do the job that was wanted by both the right hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Language Board. We are not getting it.
It is a sad night and, yes, I do feel angry about it. Not against the Minister of State—we have to know who our enemies are when it comes to the language—but against the system that tells Wales, despite the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members on this issue, that we must have what a Conservative Government give us.
If ever there was an argument for us to have our own parliament, to make our own laws on matters relevant to our own country, this is it. If the Government think that this is the end of the story, my goodness it is not; this is the beginning of the story and the beginning of a campaign. On the way that we have been treated over this Bill, we will build the movement until we get our own government and our own parliament to pass our own laws in these matters.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is very difficult to follow so powerful and heartfelt a speech as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I agree with much of what he said on all the issues that he mentioned, apart from the matter of juries, on which I spoke earlier.
The Government will have their majority tonight, as the Minister of State knows; the Government will have their Bill. There is no risk to the Bill caused by those who protest against the Government's views by voting against it tonight, as I shall.
We see that a statutory Welsh Language Board is to be set up as a result of the Bill, and that really is the end product. I join the hon. Member for Caernarfon in praising the non-statutory Welsh Language Board, which has been remarkable, has covered a period of years and has devoted a great deal of thought to the issue and done much to benefit the language.
I offer all good wishes to the statutory Welsh Language Board, but I think, like the hon. Member for Caernarfon, that it will find itself frustrated by the limits within which it operates. It runs the risk, at least, of being not a great deal more than a paper tiger. I hope that it will express its views so strongly that they can rarely be ignored, particularly by many of the public bodies in Wales which in years gone by have shown a good deal of resistance to the march of the Welsh language, which most of us, including the Minister of State, welcome.
In my view, the real deficiency of the Bill is that, after all the years of discussion upon it, all the efforts of the Welsh Language Board, the debates here and in the other place, and the lengthy and detailed debates in Committee, not one citizen of Wales will have a single right that he or she can enforce by judicial review through the court, or by any other means. Not one organisation in Wales, apart from the statutory Welsh Language Board, will have a duty which the citizen can enforce against it.
That is a profound disappointment. It is a sufficient disappointment for me to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to join the Members representing Plaid Cymru in the No Lobby a little later tonight.

Mr. Flynn: For a brief period in 1988 I was my party's Front-Bench spokesman on Wales and the first subject that I raised was the need for a Welsh language Bill. Never did I foresee that, some years later, I would find myself having to vote against such a Bill. The former arch druid


said that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Sadly, he overstated it. What we have left tonight is not half a loaf, but a few crumbs that have been given to us by our colonial masters.
In Committee,we had many hopes of what would come from the Bill, but every one of those hopes has been trampled on—not by our elected Members from Wales, where there has been an extraordinary unanimity, from the almost totally English part of Wales—where the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has adopted a reasonable attitude to the Bill and defended his own position—to the almost totally Welsh language-speaking parts of Wales. The unanimity has been there.
When there was a vote as to whether Welsh-speaking defendants should have the right to elect juries that spoke their own language, that right was denied. That was a remarkable result. It is a basic right that exists in almost every corner of the world. By whom was it denied? By the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Those are the people who have trampled on the Bill.
The Minister has a proud record and we all pay tribute to him. He is now in his 15th year of ministerial office and he has made great contributions to the Welsh language. He has been a great servant of Wales and we have all been generous in our contributions. That is why we feel angry tonight: he has turned down reasonable Opposition propositions.
The language raises strong passions in all of us, as it should. It is the most ancient language in Europe—a language that was spoken here in London many years before Anglo-Saxon, the mother language of English, appeared in these islands. It is a language that had rich literature and sophisticated poetry 2,000 years ago. That language has not been helped one jot tonight.
What we have heard all the time is "it may", "perhaps" and "there will be schemes". When the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) rightly argued tonight for the Minister to lose a bit of face and agree one minor amendment—which he could correct later, if he wanted to, in the other place—he trampled on that amendment.
What the Government have done tonight has inspired new nationalism in Wales. They have shown the people of Wales that we are a subject race. We are being abused by people who cannot be elected in Wales; who have been rejected time and again by the electorate of Wales. Tonight we have seen the arrogance of an elective dictatorship.

Mr. Morgan: The problem with the Bill is that it suffers from the Secretary of State's St. Mellons syndrome: he visits a community and pretends to take a great deal of interest in the subject under discussion, but a week later he drops a large amount of organic mushroom fertiliser on it from a very great height.
The right hon. Gentleman has not fought the battles that he should have fought in the Cabinet. He and the Minister of State have visited the subject of the Welsh language, but when anything important arose he resisted the changes that were proposed and the compromises that were offered by the Opposition. There has been no give and take and he has not done his duty.
As for the St. Mellons syndrome, the Secretary of State should perhaps consider the Welsh language to be a single-parent language, and that duties of paternity have fallen upon him—which, in a way, he asked for by accepting promotion to the Cabinet. He has taken responsibility tonight for the state of the legislation, but he has not carried out his paternal duties and has left Welsh as a single-parent language, without the support that it should have had. The Bill should have done the job properly on the privatised public utilities, on jury trials in Welsh and, above all, on the question of official status.
That is why we feel that the Secretary of State has shown that he intends to use Wales simply as a political platform for his own long-term ambitions on the right wing of the Tory party. He has not repaid to Wales the debt he owes it by the fact that it has provided him with his first promotion to Cabinet status. That is why he has not done his job in the way that he could have done. He has not taken the opportunities that were available to him. So we have not received the equality of treatment that we might have expected had there been give and take on the part of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been some Government amendments. In the main, they have filled obvious omissions in the companies and charities legislation, not matters brought to his attention by the Opposition as concessions to be made. They were simply matters about which he had erred by not listening to the advice of specialist bodies. He has made some minor concessions to the Opposition, but one requires a microscope manufactured in a Welsh Development Agency Japanese factory in the valleys to see them. That is why we feel badly let down.
We on the Labour Front Bench are not recommending a vote against the Bill. We shall be abstaining tonight because we hope to have the opportunity before long to do the job properly. That will be done when we revisit the question of a Welsh language measure, when we are in government.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): What pathetic heroic indecision on the part of the Labour party. Here was an opportunity for them to vote for a measure that will further the interests of Welsh language speakers and will be good news for the Welsh language. Yet there they sit on the Labour Benches—all four or so of them—not knowing what to do, gripped by indecision and quite unable to reach a conclusion.
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He has worked tirelessly and well in the interests of the Welsh language and has brought good measures to the House—[Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that my right hon. Friend and I are entirely at one on this issue. We believe that it is the right Bill for the right circumstances and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman intends to vote against it. How extraordinary for him to be voting against a positive and practical measure for the Welsh language. He will be voting against the interests of the people of Wales.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that there were no rights and opportunities in the measure. It contains numerous opportunities. It gives people the opportunity and right to enjoy the benefits of the schemes that will come forward under the legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman


really saying that he and his party wish to undermine the consensus that was being built patiently by many men and women of good will to further the interests of the Welsh language and the Welsh culture?
The hon. Member for Caernarfon must tonight answer the difficult questions. Why is he rupturing the consensus, turning down the olive branches offered by my right hon. Friend and throwing back into my right hon. Friend's face the hard work he has done and the good wishes he has put forward in the Bill for the Welsh language? That is what the Welsh people will want to know and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise what a mistake he is making tonight.
The hon. and earned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested that the board will be a paper tiger. It will not and the board will resent his comment. It will do its job well and with distinction and it will get every encouragement from us.
I hope that when tempers have cooled a little after tonight's debate, the Opposition parties will think again and realise that there is something to be said for the Bill and that rebuilding the consensus is the way forward for the Welsh language.
It is important for Opposition Members to understand the feelings of the many people in Wales who do not speak Welsh, just as surely as it is important for them to understand the feelings of those who speak Welsh, and it is understandable that they should wish to look after their interests.
The Bill represents good progress. The Government have listened and have made 21 amendments. We have made a number of improvements to the Bill as a result of the work of the Committee and my right hon. Friend spelt those out in great detail. He also answered patiently all the points made, so I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 19.

Division No. 337]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyro For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)





Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Day, Stephen
Merchant, Piers


Dorrell, Stephen
Milligan, Stephen


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Elletson, Harold
Oppenheim, Phillip


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Paice, James


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Patnick, Irvine


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Richards, Rod


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


French, Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gale, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gallie, Phil
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gillan, Cheryl
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spencer, Sir Derek


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hague, William
Sproat, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harris, David
Steen, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Stephen, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Hendry, Charles
Sweeney, Walter


Horam, John
Sykes, John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Thomason, Roy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jack, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jessel, Toby
Trend, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Kilfedder, Sir James
Viggers, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Waller, Gary


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Whittingdale, John


Lidington, David
Willetts, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lord, Michael
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Llwyd, Elfyn


Betts, Clive
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Wallace, James


Cox, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Dafis, Cynog



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and Mr. Paul Flynn.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)



Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments, authorises expenditure of £3,116 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in February, that brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,492 million, an increase of 9·6 per cent. on 1992–93 provisional outturn.
It is customary on such occasions to highlight the main items in the estimates, but I shall be very brief, and shall not comment on each vote. I draw the attention of the House to the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, in which £148 million is for the Industrial Development Board. That will enable the board to carry out its role of strengthening Northern Ireland's industrial base and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry.
In vote 2, £37 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. That will allow the agency to maintain and build on the success that it achieved during 1992–93, which was one of its most successful years.
In vote 3, £193 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes £47 million for the youth training programme, to support some 12,500 training places, and £52 million for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,500 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. A further £21 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults, and £12 million is for the company development programme, which will increase to 300 the number of companies assisted to improve their competitiveness in external markets.
Token provision of £1,000 has been included in vote 4 to cover expenses to be incurred in the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. A supplementary estimate covering the actual expenses and proceeds from the sale will be presented to the House later in the year.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £176 million is for roads, transport and ports. This includes some £144 million for the roads service. Department of the Environment vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £193 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the resources available for housing will be some £552 million. This is an increase of some £2 million over 1992–93. This substantial sum will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Department of the Environment vote 3 covers expenditure on the water and sewerage schemes. Gross expenditure in 1993–94 is estimated at £174 million, an increase of some £27 million over 1992–93 outturn. Also, £77 million is for capital expenditure and £97 million for

operational and maintenance purposes. I will not comment further on the Department of the Environment votes.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,253 million, an increase of 2·5 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £772 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £23 million over 1992–93. This includes £407 million for school teachers' salaries, which is sufficient to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels. Also included is £250 million for other expenditure on schools and on further education services and £115 million for libraries, youth, transport and administration.
Vote I also includes £39 million for boards' capital projects, including provision for new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. In addition, £8 million is for integrated schools, and £129 million for voluntary schools.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Total net provision of £1,209 million in votes 1 and 3 will maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over estimated outturn for 1992–93.
Also, £1,127 million in vote 4 is for a large range of social security benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. This represents an increase of more than 6 per cent. on last year.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel. In vote 3, over £4 million is for the community relations programme, reflecting the importance that the Government continue to attach to community relations.
In my opening remarks, I have briefly drawn attention to some of the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), will respond to points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: I welcome the Minister of State, Northern ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to the Dispatch Box. When Members of Parliament are appointed as Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office and when hon. Members are appointed as shadow Northern Ireland Ministers, some of our friends tend to think that we are between a rock and a hard place. In some cases, that is probably true. However, the more that the right hon. Gentleman settles into his brief, the more he will find that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are honest, decent, law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to live in peace with each other. I wish the Minister well in his difficult brief.
We again refer to the Government's allocation of resources among spending Departments within Northern Ireland. As on former occasions, this debate should have been a welcome opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns about a wide range of problems affecting Northern Ireland. Because of the hour—I do not blame our Welsh colleagues for their deliberations—we are limited once again to a very short debate. However, I am given to understand that the usual channels have agreed that we can return to the subject for a much longer period


when the House reconvenes in the autumn. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will forgive me for delivering my prepared speech.
In spite of what the Minister has told us about the amount of money that the Government are allocating to Northern Ireland, unlike what happened on former occasions, tonight's proceedings take place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury waiting in the wings before taking centre stage and delivering a series of swingeing cuts. It seems that the Government expect the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom to foot the bill for their financial ineptitude. Sadly, the Government's incompetence is starkly evidenced by the overall rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is still the highest of any region in our islands—13·7 per cent. of the work force, compared with 10·3 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I take this opportunity to welcome the recent decrease in unemployment in Northern Ireland. I also welcome today's announcement of the recent decrease in unemployment in the rest of Britain. However, I remind the Minister that the Northern Ireland figure remains shamefully high. Unfortunately, the overall figure of 13·7 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland is dwarfed by some of the most appalling statistics revealed in travel-to-work areas. Cookstown and Derry, from which I returned yesterday, continue to suffer more than 18 per cent. unemployment. In Strabane, 23 per cent. of the work force is unemployed.
I hope that the Minister appreciates that a seasonally adjusted fall in unemployment of 1,500 is certainly welcome, but it allows no room for complacency. However, this month's announcement by the Department does not include the unacceptable number of long-term unemployed concealed within the monthly figure. For the Minister's benefit, I remind him that 53·9 per cent.—more than half the unemployed in Northern Ireland—have been out of work for a year. What hope can the Minister give them? Perhaps he will tell the House how far the order will go towards getting the long-term unemployed in Derry or Strabane back to work. They represent 59·5 per cent. and 64·5 per cent. respectively of their area totals.
What is more worrying about the Government's plans to find spending savings by attacking the poorest in Northern Ireland is the effect upon the already high number of people in the region who are living in or near poverty. In the 1930s, Joseph Rowntree discovered widespread hardship, squalor and suffering in areas such as York and Liverpool. Like Northern Ireland, parts of Merseyside hope to receive objective 1 status. As we approach the end of the century, research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on household budgets and living standards in Northern Ireland has shown that for a couple with two children current income support meets only 74 per cent. of their basic minimum budget. In addition, income support and children's allowances were found to meet only 43 per cent. of the amount needed to provide adequate living standards. Frankly, in the latter part of the 20th century, those statistics are a scandalous indictment of the Government's failing.
The hardship that many Northern Ireland families are currently experiencing is mirrored by the difficulties that the region's young face. The annual report of the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux states:

High levels of unemployment mean that young people can no longer confidently look forward to securing a job or apprenticeship. The best opportunity secured by upwards of 15,000 young people every year is a place on a Youth Training Programme.
What a waste of young talent and potential.
If the Government continue merely to dump young people in poorly paid schemes and refuse to utilise the greatest resource available to them—and the people of Northern Ireland—we will begin to see more than 50 young people present themselves every week to the Housing Executive as homeless. We will begin to see lengthening queues of unemployed young people joining the 8,000 who are already unable to find a place on youth training programmes and who consequently must live on £23·90 a week.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the young people to whom he is referring—those in virtually every part of Northern Ireland and especially those in the cities and towns—are the same young people who, when training schemes come to an end, are cynically exploited by paramilitary organisations? They find themselves sandwiched between the paramilitaries and the inevitable confrontations between security forces. In many ways, they are lost and find their way into prison or at the end of a gun, taking someone's life or being killed themselves.

Mr. Stott: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, as someone who has a great deal of experience in such matters. If we could give those young people a proper job, and if there was hope for them in terms of employment provision, that would help them immeasurably not to fall into the arms of the paramilitaries. Unemployment and the lack of hope are probably the greatest recruiting sergeants for the paramilitaries.
In short, we will see further increases in the level of debt, homelessness and poverty among all sections of society in Northern Ireland, all of which will be a direct result of the policies promulgated by the Conservative party. As has been made clear by further leaks and speculation, the Secretary of State for Social Security is impatiently sharpening his axe before taking it to the benefits that are paid to those who have no other form of income.
The Minister will know that, of all the regions in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has the highest rate of people with disabilities—a total of 17·4 per cent. Seventy five per cent. of them rely on the social security system for part or all of their income. If the Government take their intended sideswipe at those who claim invalidity benefit, the Minister and his colleagues will consign three quarters of the disabled adult population in Northern Ireland to further hardship and anxiety. Therefore, the Minister is faced with a large number of potential victims of any Government spending cuts in Northern Ireland. How can he possibly justify an action that will result in 201,000 adults with disabilities in Northern Ireland being forced to pay through their meagre benefits to restore the Government's political fortunes?
I welcome the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to his new post in the Northern Ireland team, although he is not in his place. I am sure that he is aware that his predecessor set in motion a review of education administration in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will


give such a wide-ranging review equally extensive consideration and that he will not reach any hasty conclusions.
As I said earlier, I returned from Northern Ireland yesterday. I had spent some time visiting Meanscoil in Belfast. The school does not have state funding and is consequently seeking a commitment from the Minister. As its name suggests, Meanscoil teaches the curriculum in the Irish language and has been doing so since 1991. It is funded by parents and the community. It is the only school in the whole of Northern Ireland to provide Irish-medium education to those pupils who have already received their primary education in the Irish language. It seems to me that the school satisfies the necessary requirements. Will the Minister consider its case sympathetically? I shall write to him about it tomorrow morning.

Dr. Hendron: The subject of Meanscoil Feinte is dear to my heart, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The only Irish-medium secondary school is in my constituency. The Government have already accepted their responsibility for the Irish language in primary school education, so I hope that they will look positively at this secondary school in west Belfast.

Mr. Stott: I know that my hon. Friend recently visited the school and that he is as concerned as I am to ensure that the Irish language is fostered and maintained. I understand that four primary schools teach in the Irish language. From the age of 11 no school other than this one teaches the curriculum in Irish for children up to the age of 16. We have just had a big debate on the Welsh language. It is important that cultural links and the language are preserved and protected. I hope for a sympathetic response from the Minister.
The education service as a whole ultimately depends on the quality of its teachers and lecturers for the achievement of the required standards and the implementation of the changes that the Government have introduced. Although most face the added pressure of education reform positively, the changes are demanding so much energy and commitment that the quality of the provision for pupils and students in schools and colleges is in danger of being lowered. As someone who is married to a teacher in this country, I can confidently tell the Minister that education changes have caused great difficulty to the teaching profession.
If that possibility is to be avoided it will be necessary to employ not only the most effective forms of in-service training and advisory and support services to assist teachers in implementing the changes, but to win the vital endorsement and support of parents, teachers and employers for the service that the teaching profession in Northern Ireland provides.
The Government have decided in their wisdom that Belfast international airport is to be privatised. The people who work there are concerned about their futures, their job prospects and pension provision. On Tuesday morning I spoke to a number of trade unionists who represent the work force there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and I have been extremely concerned about the police force at that airport. They are not members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; they wear

a different uniform. Nevertheless, they are sworn constables under a magistrate. If they are to be transferred to the private sector, their concern is about their operational impartiality and duties.
I wrote to the Minister of State on 17 June asking him whether a representative of the police force at the airport, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and I could meet him to discuss the police force's concerns. The Minister has not responded to my letter but I hope that he will respond positively so that that important organisation—the police force at Belfast airport—can put its genuine and serious concerns to him.
If the perceived advantages of the European single market are to be realised, it is crucial, because of the island of Ireland's peripheral geography to the rest of mainland Europe, that industry, commerce, tourism, transport and energy policy are harmonised on an island basis
In its crudest terms, Northern Ireland has benefited from additional EC funding as a result of objective 1 status. But welcome as such investment is, compared with the funds granted to the Republic, Northern Ireland still receives a disproportionate part of the cake. As has been said, a comparison with the Republic on the basis of a head count shows that Northern Ireland is granted only one third of the sum to which it might otherwise be entitled. That illustrates an unfortunate consequence of the European Community viewing Northern Ireland's economy in simple regional terms rather than addressing the needs of the island of Ireland economy as a whole.
Two weeks ago, during the recent debate on the renewal of direct rule order, we heard how difficult it will be to get an agreed constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland. I do not doubt for an instant that it will be difficult but it will not be impossible. By contrast, however, making the island of Ireland economy work is an opportunity, not a problem. I am sure that all Members representing Northern Ireland will work together to ensure that full advantage is taken of any potential increase in cross-border aid.
In his speech in Dublin last year, Dr. George Quigley, chairman of the Ulster bank, reinforced the concept of "Ireland, an island economy". I recommend all hon. Members who have not read Dr Quigley's paper to do so because he describes how businesses in the north and south are working closely together. He said:
As Chairman of Ulster Bank, which is in the fairly unique situation of doing 50 per cent. of its business in the South and 50 per cent. in the North, I find no difficulty with the proposition that Ireland is—or should be—an island economy. Both North and South would have signally failed to give substance to the 1992 concept if, occupying a small island on the periphery of the EC, they neglected or were unable to function as a single market. The Bank's fortunes are intertwined with the prosperity of both parts of the island".
Hon. Members will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport recently granted the American airline, TransAir, a licence to fly directly from Belfast international airport to New York. I warmly welcome that move and am pleased that my representations in support of the licence did not fall on deaf ears and that I finally have my baggage back from Riga. The new link between Northern Ireland and the United States will attract extra valuable inward investment and begin to counter the isolation to which Dr. Quigley referred in his speech.
Now that business has set the agenda, the specialist Government agencies in the north and south have an important role to play in consultation with the business


community. A seminar in Northern Ireland formally confirmed the agreement of the International Development bank and the Irish Trade Board to work closely together to increase the number and range of products supplied within the island of Ireland. A series of jointly organised sourcing exhibitions will encourage companies to supply goods currently imported from outside Ireland. Equally important are the planned initiatives in conjunction with the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Confederation of British Industry to open up areas of public procurement in the island in a way that strengthens companies so that they can bid successfully for public sector procurement contracts in the rest of the European Community.
I agree with Sir George Quigley's analysis that for far too long the economic orientation of both parts of the island has been along a horizontal rather than a vertical axis. In a global economy, it is essential that we continue to look outwards towards the rest of Europe and beyond. It is crucial that both Governments do not neglect the potential that exists within the vertical axis, the strengthening of which will create a more solid springboard for growth within the island of Ireland and for conquering markets within the European Community. Making the island economy work is essential. It is an opportunity; it is not a problem.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall make a brief comment about the speech by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Before I do so, I wish well the new Minister, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), and also his new colleague, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I trust that in the right hon. Gentleman's arduous duties, especially in regard to the prisons of Northern Ireland, he will have the benefit of bringing his experience to bear on problems that are vital to the best in the community.
The prisoners, who come from both sections of the community, run right into the community. There is a great need today for there to be an understanding of how the families feel and an understanding of what is happening in the prisons of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the House wishes the Minister well as he tackles a difficult and continuing problem in Northern Ireland.
It comes as no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Wigan talking about an island economy. I have the document that has been much talked about and that programme is set forth in it. Level 1 is:
Co-operation between Departments and institutions on both sides of the border.
Level 2 is "Harmonisation of policies". "Integration of administrations" is level 3. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for Wigan tonight.
I have experience in Europe. I have been an elected Member of the European Parliament continuously since I was first elected. I have topped the poll at every election to the European Parliament. I have been there. I have never once seen the deputies, as they call themselves, from the south of Ireland voting for anything that was of benefit to Northern Ireland. Not once. I have challenged them about that. I have voted in the European Parliament for things that were of benefit to the south of Ireland, as long as they were not detrimental to the north of Ireland. Those deputies have never done the same. I am sick of the talk about them being all for this island economy.
I was in Strasbourg this week. I heard the deputies demanding £8 billion. Never once did they mention Northern Ireland. There was not a cheep about it. They never even said once that of course Northern Ireland deserves the treatment that we demand. In fact, they told the European Parliament that they were good Europeans. As the predecessor of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said in the House of Lords this week, "Yes, they are good Europeans as long as you pay them well." Six million pounds a day and they will be good Europeans. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Wigan, the spokesman for the Labour party, to read to us tonight a lesson about the glorious co-operation that we shall have from the south of Ireland.
As for Dr. Quigley, I happened to meet representatives of the business community in Northern Ireland at a meeting known as the meeting of the seven. I am sure that other Northern Ireland Members have been to such meetings, too. I took up Mr. Quigley there on something that he had said. Faced with his own business men around the table, he backed off. I told him that it was all very well singing the praises of his own bank—with 50 per cent. of its business in the south, it profits the bank to go in for co-operation with the south—but such co-operation certainly does not profit Northern Ireland, since businesses in all sectors of the economy in the south are trying to undercut the competition from Northern Ireland.
It is a pity that the Minister had no time to tell us about the structural fund and what additional money will result from it. The House should realise that something strange has happened to it—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, it is disgraceful that the Northern Ireland Office sends out the documentation on the structural fund to every Tom, Dick and Harry in Northern Ireland, and to every community organisation and tenants association there, but has not, to date, sent it to Members of Parliament?

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is indeed. I happen to have a copy because I am a member of the European Parliament, but I do not see why colleagues here should not have been sent a copy.
To return to the structural fund: the cake has not been enlarged, but the number of those wanting a share of it has increased. Germany will get the largest slice, because it has achieved objective I status for east Germany. Belgium and France are to receive money, and Italy will too—even though it was not able to spend the money that it has already been given. Presumably Italy will proceed to hoard the money, or perhaps it has been stolen by the Mafia, or perhaps the Italian Prime Minister stole it.
All these Governments are demanding a slice of the cake, so our slice will be smaller. Merseyside and the highlands and islands are also to get a share, and rightly so, but I should like the Minister to tell us how much we are likely to get. Demands for £8 billion from the south have been cut to perhaps £7·5 billion, but those who are to get that much are not satisfied. I wonder how much will be cut from our money. Will we get £1 billion, or less?
This week I talked, with my European colleagues the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Nicholson, to Commissioner Millan. He said that, when the figures are announced, there will be some surprises: they are all to be reduced.
So, far from getting anything out of the cohesion fund, we will be paying into it—

Mr. Stott: Maastricht.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Everyone knows my attitude to Maastricht, and the official attitude of the Labour party, so the pot should not call the kettle black.
The four poor countries—Portugal, Greece, Spain and Ireland—have all put their hands in the cohesion fund kitty, which is a quarter as big again as the structural fund. So the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—of Merseyside, of the highlands and islands, and of Northern Ireland—who are crying out for money as objective 1 areas will find that they are putting their pounds into the pockets of the countries I have mentioned. Dublin is shouting loud and already has £3 million a day, and will soon be getting £6 million. That fact will shortly come out in the wash.
We need to hear what the Government think they will get. The last time that we had structural pay-outs, what did Northern Ireland get as an objective 1 area? It got an increase of 8 per cent., which hardly covered inflation. The south of Ireland got an increase of between 80 and 90 per cent. Spain, Portugal and Greece got an increase of over 100 per cent. When Ministers were negotiating, why did they not ask for double the money because we lost out before? The Commissioner has told me that Ministers asked for no increase, just for their crunch of the money. The Northern Ireland Office must come clean and tell us exactly what it feels it will get from the structural fund, and where the money will be spent.
I read the debate in another place, and I would like the Minister to hear something that was said there. Lord Cooke of Islandreagh raised the matter of the structural fund, and the Minister answering said:
the Government will fully accept the additionality requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 1993; Vol. 547, c. 1656]
Will the money we get, whether it is a little or a lot, be additional, and where in the appropriations will it be spent? The Minister must address that question in his reply, although we know that we shall not have much time for a reply.
There are other matters of great interest that I would have liked to have dealt with tonight, but, as we know, we have only a limited time. I thought that the hon. Member for Wigan would have curbed the length of his speech, as we are curbing ours, but he did not, because he was so interested in the school that teaches Gaelic. I rather laughed at that, because the census figures tell us that only about 5 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland speak Gaelic, and even fewer read and write it. It is not like Wales. I spent part of my life in Wales, and every church I preached in had both a Welsh and an English service in the morning. That does not happen in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of the Roman Catholic population speak Gaelic. The situation is not on a par with that in Wales—I understand the deep feelings of Welsh speakers, which were expressed so well earlier tonight. To argue about that is to get into minutiae that we should not be getting into.

Mr. Stott: I appreciate that we have a time constraint on the debate. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in the four years that I have had this responsibility for the

Opposition, I have cut my speeches short on every appropriation order debate. This evening, I thought that it was important to flag up what I and my party consider to be important issues. I do not need any lessons from him about the length of the speeches that I make from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Oh, shut up and sit down!

Mr. Stott: And I need no lessons from that hon. Gentleman either.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am very sorry that I gave way to the hon. Member for Wigan. It is ridiculous; we are limited for time, and he is trying to justify himself. I welcome the fact that we are going to be able to discuss this matter at a later date. We need to do that. I regret that the hon. Gentleman took all the time he could, because there is not only the SDLP; there are also the Popular Unionists, and their voice should be heard too.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: First, I welcome the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir. J. Wheeler) to the Government Front Bench as a member of the Northern Ireland team. It is no insult to him, or indeed to me, that my colleagues who are in the building tonight have deserted this Bench as a protest at the intolerable way in which the business that relates to Northern Ireland has been handled, not for the first time, but for the second time that we have tried to have this debate.
There are so many areas of administration that must be dealt with in the scope of this ridiculously short debate that it is impossible to do any of them justice. Those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are obliged to try to summarise our year's work in a very few minutes, to draw on that experience and to seek to expound reasonable alternatives where we feel that there is inadequacy, right across the scope of the Northern Ireland Office administration.
Our English, Welsh and Scottish colleagues have the benefit of both a meaningful stratum of local government, which helps to relieve the burden of parochial responsibilities that Northern Ireland Members have to deal with, and of being able to address various departmental issues within debates dedicated exclusively to the function of those Departments. We, on the other hand, are obliged to paint our picture with a great broad brush that can do little to capture the nuances and attitudes pertaining to the area in which we live.
Nor do we have the benefit of inside knowledge, which can be ascertained only where there is either direct involvement or an adequate system of checks and balances a—system that would be enhanced by having a Select Committee on Northern Ireland to examine and monitor Northern Ireland matters. The first is unobtainable because we are a small Opposition party; the second because there has been a stubborn unwillingness to concede even a degree of openness about the way in which Northern Ireland is governed.
Yet, when anything goes wrong in Northern Ireland, there are those who invariably contrive to create an impression that Ulster Unionists are to blame. Whatever is wrong, the responsibility lies with a succession of


Governments who have had sole and unbridled power in the Province for the past 21 years, and that certainly is not the party to which I belong.
My colleagues and I have some ideas about how progress can be made, and I believe that that is amply demonstrated in terms of the work that is done by our district councillors, where they have managed to claw back responsibilities to themselves despite the resistance of some departmental musclemen and quango placemen.
At a time when the community in Northern Ireland is more ill at ease with itself than it has ever been during my 10 years in the House, it is becoming increasingly important to create at least an atmosphere of social and economic continuity and stability. I am not suggesting that there is anything in this life that cannot be improved upon, but I am tired of the Government going out of their way to mend things that are not actually broken. We are assailed, year in, year out, with far too many fanciful ideas that are far too costly and disruptive, and that in practice do not work the way that they were intended to. Paper exercises are too regularly failing in practice.
In this respect, I want to turn to the Department of Health and Social Services and question whether the present piecemeal policy of rationalisation of acute hospital services is in the best interests of the consumer. I have had to endure the trauma of trying to defend maternity and paediatric services in the two hospitals in my constituency. These two hospitals—the Erne and Enniskillen and the South Tyrone in Dungannon—are administered under separate health boards, and each board, one assumes encouraged by the Department, embarked on its own programme of rationalisation in isolation. No one appeared to think that, if amalgamations proved necessary, it might be sensible to consider the overall delivery of maternity and paediatric services throughout Northern Ireland.
The case of the Erne has been won, but South Tyrone's case—after nearly two years—is to be held in limbo for possibly another year. It appears that, if administrators have a cock-eyed idea that cannot be sustained, they merely give themselves time to move the goalposts and hope that the constructive opposition will go away.
I hope that the Minister will understand that, in the case of the South Tyrone, we are not going away. We know that the motivation for the proposed changes in the delivery of maternity and paediatric services has to do with the arbitrary figure of 2,500 births per unit per year. That may or may not be justified in hospitals that serve large mainland conurbations, where consumers live in a small geographical area. However, it has little relevance in a rural area of Northern Ireland, where average income is lower and distances greater, but where that is offset by a high degree of family support. In such cases, accessibility means a great deal.
My hospitals are as financially efficient as larger units, and the units dealing with between 900 and 1,000 babies per year have a low perinatal death rate that many larger units would envy. The system simply is not broken, either in financial or in safety terms; I beg the Minister not to allow the boards to mend it.
It is much more urgent, however, for the Minister to ensure that community care services are put in place in time to meet the demands resulting from shorter post-operative hospitalisation and the increased number

of day-surgery treatments. I ask him to consider carefully how such services can be delivered with the community as distinct from to the community.
He may protest that it is perhaps too early for me to try to argue conclusively that the new health boards—devoid of any elected representatives—are ineffective; but I believe that the breadth of professional talent that was hoped for is missing. There are clearly a few excellent people, but they are a minority, and the non-executive members are largely and understandably dominated by those with an executive role.
The latter—also a mediocre bunch—seem preoccupied with finance and organisation, to the detriment of the health service itself. They are preoccupied with glossy brochures and business consultants' reports. Surely it is better to put finite resources into shortening waiting lists and waiting times, and maintaining a hospital and community care infrastructure that is accessible to the consumer.
Before leaving the subject of health and social services, I must ask whether the Minister intends to do anything about the inequity in medical and other services that we in Northern Ireland appear to provide on demand for citizens of the Irish Republic. That country neither reciprocates nor provides those services for its own people.
We have already been presented with examples of the high cost of providing third-level education scholarships for students from the Irish Republic; it has often been cited in the House. Now the Minister has informed me, in answers to parliamentary questions, that 15 per cent. of private nursing home places in Fermanagh are occupied by residents who came directly from the Irish Republic.
I was disappointed to learn that the Northern Ireland Office cannot tell me what that means to the Western health and social services board and the Department of Health and Social Services in terms of social security and general practitioner costs. However, it can be deduced from the cost of in-hospital treatment—over £32,000 last year—that a good deal of money is involved. That money should be spent on providing better home help and other services for my constituents. Is it not scandalous that Cavan general hospital in the Irish Republic discharged 21 patients directly to our private nursing homes, one with such horrific bed sores that special equipment had to be bought by the Erne hospital?
About 12 per cent. of my constituents are over 65 years old, and I want the finite resources available to my health boards going to improve their quality of life. Why should we be subsidising the parasitic Government in Dublin, who would presume to lecture us on political proprieties?
Nor does the extortion end there. There is clear evidence that it is easier for someone from the Irish Republic to get a public authority house in Northern Ireland than it is for someone born in the Province who has perhaps lived his working life in England and wants to return home to retire. In matters relating to education, the social services and housing, can we afford to finance Eire's spongers to the extent that we do?
The Minister has already told me that he will not increase the funding available to the Western health and social services board to compensate for the demands of the Republic's elderly who come into my area. Will he tell me when he intends to put a stop to that abuse?
Let us consider some activities of the Department of Economic Development—in particular, the way in which


its industrial development board operates. I do not fail to recognise the difficulties enshrined in job creation, and I pay tribute to the good work being done in the Department and the IDB. But it would pay dividends if the efforts to attract inward investment and business opportunities in places such as the United States were more equally divided between officials, who work directly for the IDB, and contracted agents, who would have the advantage of working on home ground.
It is not possible, however bright and able the Department's nominees may be, for them to cover enough ground in the time available and to maintain the follow-up on promising leads. The indigenous agent who knows the territory can be of immense value if he or she is properly tasked, targeted and rewarded. On the other hand, if not productive, he or she is more easily expendable than a civil servant who has been encouraged to uproot family and home to undertake the task.
Local councils have a role to play in promoting businesses from within their own areas, targeting clearly defined regions of, say, the United States from an exporting, joint venturing and inward investment perspective. Four councils representing County Tyrone have come together to do just that in the mid-west of America and hope to be able, with IDB co-operation, to make use of, and task, an agent in that area so that he may identify opportunities. I hope that the Minister will see that as a practical, tangible opportunity for cross-party, intra-community co-operation, in contrast to some of the more ethereal schemes that exist, and I hope that he will give the initiative his support.
At home, I will only urge him to ensure that there is unity of purpose between the Departments of Economic Development and of Agriculture in sorting out the urgent need to develop our agrifood industry before it is too late. I leave him with the challenge that we must protect and develop realistically our milk-based industry.
I draw attention to the way in which the modicum of democracy which at present exists in the education and library boards is threatened in the Department's paper on reorganisation, although it is noticeably lacking in any reference to the need to rationalise the Department's headquarters. I hope that the Minister will set my mind at rest about that.
Education must never be taken out of the hands of parents and teachers. Sadly, since I left the classroom just

over 10 years ago, I find a profession which had maintained the highest standards, not least in the primary sector, very demoralised, with teachers falling over themselves to retire early.
I am glad that the Minister with responsibility at the Department of Education for Northern Ireland has recognised that, and has decided to slow down the pace of proposed change and look anew at the whole question of curriculum content. I congratulate him on that decision. It is time that teachers were restored to their proper role, and that someone got a grip on the inspectorate, which represents executive authority gone mad.
I must express disappointment at the limited funding available for new capital projects. While I welcome two major projects in my constituency in the voluntary sector, and I am pleased to have been involved in pressing for one of them, I am horrified to discover no major provision listed in the controlled sector. The Minister would be offended if I whispered, "Discrimination," but I would simply be reflecting how that has been interpreted in some quarters.
Some rural primary schools in my constituency are more than 60 years old, and there is pressure to rationalise because of falling rolls, but no one appears to have considered it a good idea to group those schools within a new rural school to sustain my rural community, or to take cognisance of the excellent study of the future of primary education commissioned by the Rural Development Council, which was broadly in favour of clustering.
While the Department has been mending things that are not broken, it has left the urgent matter of adequate infrastructure on the proverbial long finger. Will the Minister make it his priority to find extra cash to make an impact on that area? In a region of high unemployment, our children's education must have precedence.
I shall refer briefly to the Rural Development Council. There should be urgency to develop a coherent rural policy, but it will not happen unless the council is given greater authority and influence. It currently lacks teeth and plays second fiddle to every other Government Department and agency. Planners continue to be systematically destructive towards the rural community, and take little notice of its needs or rights.
I am running out of time, so I shall conclude by telling the Minister that Northern Ireland should be governed with continuity and stability; by consent rather than by diktat; by sustaining what is good and improving on what is imperfect, but never by trying to mend things that are not broken.

Sir James Kilfedder: I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He will find that the Ulster people are kindly, hospitable and friendly. No matter how their representatives in the House may sound, there is a big heart in the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
It is impossible to deal with the order in the short time that is available, so I shall mention just three points. This is the European year of older people and it is appropriate to draw attention to their problems and their needs. They are seeking not sympathy or pity, but fair play, justice and proper consideration of their plight. Most of them are living on relatively small incomes which, in many cases, have been reduced as a result of the lowering of interest rates on, for instance, their building society accounts. Unfortunately, the majority of them are just above the threshold of eligibility for state benefits.
The cost of living in Northern Ireland is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Some of our senior citizens are endeavouring to eke out their pensions by eating less or buying cheaper items. Some even try to save on the cost of heating by restricting it to one room or one bar of an electric fire. Therefore, imagine my surprise and alarm when the Government announced in the Budget the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power. Everyone in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will have to pay that tax—those who are earning enough to be obliged to pay income tax and those who are not.
In that sense, it is an unfair tax which will hurt, in particular, the retired people who do not receive state benefit, which I understand would then entitle them to some compensation, although I am not sure what will be available. It is well established that during winter there is a substantial increase in the number of deaths among pensioners. I fear that this harsh tax will cause more suffering to our senior citizens and expose them to greater danger of death through hypothermia. There is still time for the Government to abandon the tax on domestic electricity, oil, gas and coal.
I am deeply concerned about the welfare of elderly people in residential care homes, whose numbers have mushroomed. Some homes are excellent, some are not, according to the complaints that I have received from the relatives of the elderly residents. It is all very well for the Government to state that registration may be refused if the health board considers that the applicant is not a fit person to operate a residential care home, but frequent visits should be made every year and without notice. Relatives should be given leaflets inviting complaints and stating where they should be made. Telephone numbers should be provided so that someone with a grievance can immediately contact an official, who can then immediately go and check that home.
I understand that some residents who are supported at public expense in residential care homes are not being given by the owners the statutory allowance of f12·65 a week—or, at least, not being given the full amount. I am deeply concerned about that. Often, those residents are vulnerable and cannot look after some aspects of their affairs. I hope that there will be an investigation into that throughout Northern Ireland, as we must ensure that they are receiving the money to which they are entitled.
I deplore the moves by the Department of Health to close state residential care and nursing homes, which

provide the standards by which private homes can be judged. I urge the Government to preserve, in particular, the Banks residential home in Bangor, which was purpose built and provides an excellent and homely atmosphere.
In speaking of the elderly, I think of the loving care shown by the nurses who look after them, either in residential homes or in hospitals. I pay tribute to those nurses, male and female, who, by their dedication and hard work, make life more comfortable for patients of all ages in hospital. Young people in Northern Ireland who have the vocation should be encouraged to train as nurses. It is annoying and perplexing that, in an area of high unemployment, young people who are eager to become nurses are discouraged. It is ridiculous that some nurses are made redundant when it is clear that the nursing staff in hospitals are overworked. We need nurses as well as doctors to ensure the highest possible standard of patient care.
For years, I have been fighting the various plans to reduce the number of beds in the Ulster hospital in Dundonald and in the Bangor hospital and the transfer of essential services to other hospitals in Belfast.
Here in London, the movement is the other way round. The Secretary of State for Health maintains that money and facilities should go to densely populated areas outside the capital. That makes sense. But the Eastern health board, which covers North Down and Belfast, moves the beds from my constituency into Belfast, thus depriving the dense and growing population of North Down of its rights. That is a form of discrimination, and I resent it. In the name of the people of North Down, I challenge the Eastern health board to play fair. The people in my constituency deserve the best hospitals. The doctors and nurses demand them, and certainly the patients deserve them.
I should like to mention many other matters, but, in fairness to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who wishes to speak next, I shall stop here, adding only that it is unfortunate that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, do not have an adequate opportunity to examine the issues set out in the draft appropriation order. I look forward to the day when we shall have a truly democratic forum.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity, albeit brief, to participate in the appropriation debate. First, on behalf of my party, I welcome the new Minister of State, who introduced the debate, and his ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, whom I have already welcomed on a previous occasion. I hope that their endeavours in Northern Ireland will be for the benefit and welfare of all the people there and, on that basis, we promise our co-operation.
It is appropriate to put on the record the fact that the shortness of the time allowed to us tonight will allegedly be compensated for by extra time in the autumn, when the debate will be reconvened, as it were. On the understanding that that is a firm undertaking, I feel that it would be inappropriate to deal at this late hour with many of the broader issues that the appropriation debate would normally involve. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to the matters that cannot wait until the autumn to be debated and acted upon.
The first such issue concerns the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the potato feedstuffs scheme, which was introduced to alleviate the financial plight of potato farmers in Northern Ireland. The Department succumbed only after five months' pressure but, although it is late, the scheme is still welcome. The danger is not yet over. Many of the potato farmers, who form the bedrock of the agricultural scene in Northern Ireland, have been so financially devastated in the past year that despite the scheme they still require assistance in the new planting season, so I hope that some effort will be made to provide that, by means of either the structural fund or the special potato board funding.
One peculiar circumstance now affecting the farming community may cause some mirth, because it is the fact that cattle have no passports. Nevertheless, that circumstance is causing some distress along the southern border. Cattle that have been imported from the Republic of Ireland do not get any identification, so they are ineligible for cow and beef premiums in Northern Ireland. I ask the Department of Agriculture and the Minister to make representations to the appropriate department in the Republic of Ireland so that there can be co-operation over the certification and identification of animals that travel across the border.
It will not surprise the Minister if I touch briefly on the crisis in the fishing industry, because two of the three ports in Northern Ireland are in my constituency.
The fishing industry, like the potato farmers, has been devastated. It has been devastated not by the weather, but by Government policy and legislation. In that regard, I refer particularly to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act and the follow-on from that, the Sea Fish Licensing (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order 1993. They represent the most devastating revision of the common fisheries policy since 1983 which is having a tremendous effect on the environment and the economic environment of the hinterland of those two ports and of Portavogie.
There is no doubt that the so-called Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 has nothing to do with fish conservation and that it will not achieve the objectives that it set out to achieve. It is incapable of performing that function. That point was debated at the time and there is no point re-examining the issue tonight. The more important, immediate and urgent point relates to sea fish licensing.
As a result of pressure, the implementation of that proposal has been postponed until 1 January 1994. That is an indication of the difficulties that it is causing. The fishermen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seem to be the fall-guys for fish conservation policies in Europe. It is evident that other countries fishing around our waters do not abide by conservation and licensing matters.
It is particularly galling when one can stand, as I can in South Down, and see the fishermen from the Republic of Ireland putting out just a mile across the water virtually without restrictions and with a policy of an enhanced fishing fleet, when the fishermen of Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie cannot do that. I urge that the licensing time at sea provisions be re-examined to assist those fishermen.
The real way to achieve conservation is through decommissioning. However, the Government have turned their face away from a meaningful decommissioning

scheme. The efficient and modern vessels will go out of action and that will leave an inefficient and non-modern fleet to carry on fishing. The decommissioning scheme should encourage those with the largest quota drives to set aside, if they so wish, like the farmers, part of their endeavours to provide for conservation.
I must briefly refer to the Department of Health and Social Services, as I am sure all hon. Members would, because of our dramatic experiences in Northern Ireland as a result of the changes imposed by the Department. There seems to be an attempt to centralise even the most modest acute services in the conurbations.
As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, we are a rural community and we must have reasonable access to acute facilities. We are not looking for anything other than that. One of the most galling aspects of all this is that we had a so-called consultation period. However, when representatives of the community or of the duly elected councillors of Down and Mourne went to the Eastern health board, they found that there was no consultation.
When those representatives asked the board what was meant by acute services, by midwifery-led maternity services and by emergency and casualty services, the board bluntly refused to define what it meant. How can we have consultation in respect of a paper when the authors cannot explain what they mean? That is happening right across Northern Ireland. We have not had the required consultation.
One of the most interesting events in health and social services in Northern Ireland in recent times has been the intervention by the Department in the contractual goings-on of the Eastern health board vis-à-vis the Royal Victoria hospital. For the first time, the Department has admitted that ultimate responsibility is with itself. Until now the Department has said, "No, you cannot consult us at this stage; that is all to do with the administration on the ground at board level." We always knew that ultimate responsibility was with the Department itself.
I ask the Department to intervene to ensure that acute facilities are left in the area which is broadly covered by Down and Mourne health authority. There were three hospitals in the area. One has already been closed, one hospital in Banbridge is threatened, and Kilkeel hospital will be closed. Only the Down group of hospitals will be left.
I take the point about the so-called maternity services throughput of 2,500. The last I heard, it was 2,000. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has clearly said that that is not the case and that it is a departmental figment. It would be quite happy with a proper liaison group. Throughput could be as low as 500 and there could still be an effective maternity service. That is what the rural populations of Northern Ireland require.
I must finish, to be fair to the Minister, but I should refer to the closure of statutory residential homes. The Department says, "Cut 12 per cent." It does not matter whether 12 per cent. of beds is a realistic figure for the demographics of an area. It is a balance sheet exercise of cutting 12 per cent. If the Minister would listen for a moment, we are talking not about closing beds but about closing homes. The rooms are people's homes. They are not beds, they are the homes and environment of old people. We must take great care. Already, two homes in


Newcastle have been closed and people have been shuffled off to three other homes which are about to be threatened with closure. I ask the Minister to review that matter.
I see you looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I take the hint very clearly. However, we have only scratched the surface of the topic. Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Northern Ireland what will happen to the European fund to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred in great detail? The Northern Irish people are disgusted by what is happening. We would like to know what new instructions, if any, are being issued to the Minister and the negotiating team in the Council of Ministers to ensure that Northern Ireland deprived region No. 1 gets a reasonable funding allocation to enable it to sustain a measure of economic growth.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have but seven minutes to try to respond to the debate. I therefore agree with comments about the shortage of time to examine several important and urgent issues for hon. Members who represent the various strands of opinion within the Province.
I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and others for their kind words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who recently joined the team. They appreciated those comments and they look forward to working, as I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Earl of Arran have done for some months, with such a friendly bunch.
Several issues have been raised. I will write to hon. Members on matters that I cannot address in my brief reply—or encourage my ministerial colleagues with certain responsibilities to do so. Perhaps I shall touch on matters that are my responsibility within the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment, and conclude, if I have the time, on matters relating to structural funds, about which there is concern and a need for clarification.
The hon. Member for Wigan made several comments and referred to the problems of unemployment. I agree that there are still a great number of concerns. Much of the unemployment is endemic for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members understand. It is my task and that of the Industrial Development Board and other organisations to do what we can to create new jobs and encourage new companies to come to the Province and provide opportunities for new employment. We had a successful year in 1992–93. Nearly 2,000 jobs were created in new major companies around the Province. That task continues with the tacit and often overt support of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who do a great deal to assist in that respect.
I pick out the point raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) about his activities and those of the organisation in his constituency with the delightful name of TEDI. Other hon. Members and organisations are also encouraging links between various parts of the United States and, indeed, other parts of the world. The work done by those organisations, properly constituted, is valuable and is appreciated by IDB and others.
There is always some concern when there is a potential conflict between the activities of local councils and the IDB when they are not properly controlled. If they are not properly controlled, we get conflicts and difficulties. Essentially, if the organisations are properly set up, they do a great deal of work.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised a point about the airport. I will be delighted to see him and anyone whom he wishes to bring. That matter is important. I am sorry that he has not yet had a reply, but he should get one—I make a pledge now.
I agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They were sensible and thoughtful and I will try to implement them as soon as possible. He made some points about planning in rural areas. Hon. Members know my view on planning in rural areas, but let me put it on the record now. I am entirely in favour of industry in rural areas—I am not against it. However, it must be recognised that there are pressures on rural areas when that happens.
Let me repeat that I am entirely in favour of housing in rural areas. It is essential that those who work in agriculture and other small industries have the right to be housed, especially if they have a family connection that involves them wanting to stay in the area in which they live. I have no argument with that. The only discussion—I suspect that hon. Members share this concern—is perhaps about the quality of the properties.
I spent a delightful day with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his constituency. We looked at a number of planning concerns. We found—perhaps to his astonishment, if not to mine—an identity of purpose and understanding about what is happening there. Hon. Members will understand that there is an interest there.
I shall conclude my brief remarks—I want to return to a number of issues, perhaps through correspondence—by referring to the points raised about the structural funds, which are exercising all hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Antrim, North. To answer his question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others have fought hard for not simply a significant increase for Northern Ireland. We have asked for a significant increase on what was requested last year plus inflation, so that pressure is firm.
The hon. Gentleman and others will have heard on the wireless this morning comments from Commissioner Millan who made it clear that the British Government, through my right hon. Friend, have been fighting extremely hard for the cause of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke directly to Commissioner Millan on the telephone. He made clear to Commissioner Millan, who was receptive in this regard, the importance of Northern Ireland maintaining its objective I status, but having no more than its fair share.
We must recognise that there is pressure on EC funds at present. I think that everyone understands that. We recognise that the specific pressures are coming from the former eastern part of Germany, parts of Portugal, Greece, and so on. I make the point—this shows how hard we have fought for Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland's gross domestic product per capita is about 76 per cent. of the EC average, which is well above objective 1 status figures in other parts of the EC. We have fought hard against the odds to ensure that Northern Ireland gets


a fair crack of the whip. If hon. Gentlemen are fair, and I know them to be so, they will understand that. We must continue that fight as Northern Ireland is entitled to a fair share of these moneys. My right hon. and hon. Friends in my Department and in the Government pledge that we will do so.
We have had an all-too-brief debate. All the points raised by hon. Gentlemen will be considered. We will respond as urgently as we can on the details of health services and residential homes—a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised. He speaks with great care for the elderly in his constituency. I hope that we can talk about these matters again after the recess and at some length so that hon. Members on both sides of the House and the official Opposition have the opportunity to raise matters and I, as a Minister, and my colleagues have the opportunity to respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Andrew MacKay be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

PETITIONS

Post Office Services

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I rise to present a petition which is signed by my constituents who are concerned about Government plans to privatise the Post Office and to transfer VAT payments from post offices to banks. This has been an extremely contentious issue and the House may be astonished to know that in a little over six weeks I have secured no fewer than 11,490 signatures from my constituents in suburban and rural areas. My hon. Friends have similar petitions to present. I shall read the material allegations.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned presidents of Gordon sheweth that we express deep concern that the Government proposes to privatise post office services and compulsorily transfer social security payments from post offices to banks, and we oppose these measures jointly and severally as they threaten the very survival of rural post offices and deny the efficiency and convenience of the present system, especially in rural areas.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the residents of Argyll and Bute regarding their concern that the Government might remove their right to receive pensions and benefit payments at local sub-post offices. If that happens, it will undoubtedy threaten the survival of sub-post offices and rural village shops, with which they are so often connected. That would cut deep at the heart of these communities. The signatures were collected throughout the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute and I pay special tribute to the sub-postmasters and mistresses and all involved, both young and old, who helped collect them. The petition is signed by more than 9,500 of my constituents and I support it. It concludes with the following words:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. James Wallace: The petition that I present is signed by my constituents in Orkney and Shetland, by others in other parts and by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It is in similar terms to those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
The signatures have been collected in a relatively short period of time. I echo the thanks to sub-postmasters and mistresses who have helped to collect them.
The Government have said that they will not go down the road of a compulsory transfer to banks, but they still encourage payment of benefit into bank accounts. That could lead to the destruction of the network of sub-post offices throughout the country, which is a valued rural service.
The total number of signatures on the petition, including those of my hon. Friends and myself, amounts to 42,000, which makes the message loud and clear.
Wherefore your petitioners pray
That your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Defence Industries (Chelmsford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Simon Burns: My constituents and I are grateful that I have an opportunity to raise an important issue in Chelmsford and in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
The background to this short debate is somewhat contradictory, because, in the past two months, Chelmsford has benefited from a fall in unemployment, in both the local authority area and the parliamentary constituency, of 551 and 384 people respectively. Unfortunately, however, the good news created by those substantial and consistent falls in unemployment has been lost because of last week's announcement by Marconi Radar that, sadly, it had to make a further 300 people in Chelmsford redundant.
We have paid a heavy price for the peace dividend and a more peaceful world. It is ironic that those who are most critical of defence-related redundancies advocate even more defence cuts. The Labour party has consistently voted for a 27 per cent.—£6 billion—cut in the defence budget. The Liberal Democrats would like to see defence spending cut by 50 per cent.—half the defence budget—over the next seven years. Both policies would have an even more traumatic effect on defence industries in my constituency.
To understand the impact of the redundancies in defence-related industries in Chelmsford in the past 12 to 18 months, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town. Chelmsford has always been associated with the Marconi companies, and many people in Chelmsford consider them to be synonymous. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve were the town's major employers, providing jobs for 11,000 people with thousands of back-up jobs reliant on their success.
The 1989 census of employment shows that three quarters of Chelmsford's manufacturing jobs were in the standard industrial classification group 3, which includes engineering and vehicles. Employment in that group was dominated by the GEC companies: Marconi Communications; Marconi Radar; and English Electric Valve.
In the past 18 months, there has been an all too dismal repetition of job losses in those companies. In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phone; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar when it moved its manufacturing to Leicester; in June 1992, 225 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in September 1992, a further 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valve; and now 300 jobs have been lost at Marconi Radar.
Almost 2,000 jobs have been lost in a relatively short time. I do not need to remind the House of the misery that that causes to the men and families directly involved, to the companies, which do not enjoy making people redundant, and to the town because of the knock-on effect those redundancies have on suppliers, back-up staff, shops and the area's commercial life.
The men who have been made redundant are highly trained and desperate to be in work, contributing to our nation's manufacturing base and using their skills to the utmost degree.
There are two reasons for that dismal catalogue of redundancies. First, the ending of the cold war and the subsequent peace dividend, coming as they did so swiftly and unexpectedly with the crumbling of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, have meant that we live in a relatively more peaceful world. Consequently, the Government have rightly had to reassess the defence requirement of this country.
Secondly, we as a nation have an excellent record in defence industry exports, but the peace dividend has coincided with a worldwide recession, which has meant that the market for defence equipment and communications worldwide has contracted, and that the competition has intensified. As part of the need to remain competitive or lose out even more, the Marconi companies have had to take drastic action.
What of the future? I have a number of suggestions, which I am pleased to make, to help to alleviate the short-term problems facing my constituents and to try to help to improve long-term prospects for defence-related industries. I welcome the fact the Government have signed up to KONVER, the European Community programme to provide financial assistance to areas suffering from redundancies in defence-related industries.
Chelmsford will compete for that money to help with reskilling and retraining. However, under the EC rules, two thirds of the money is designated on a criterion under which Chelmsford would not usually be able to compete. That is farcical. A recent university of York report for the European Commission on the economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces on the regions of the Community identifies Essex as the second worst-hit area in the EC.
First, it is imperative that the criterion is changed so that Essex can bid in all the categories of the KONVER funding. I know that work is being done at county level to come up with an excellent idea to use some of that money directly to help over the long term companies facing problems from a contracting defence market.
Secondly, the companies must continue to broaden their base by diversifying into non-military products. The companies have long recognised that, and for a number of years they have been doing all that they can to diversify as quickly as possible. Marconi Communications has had an ambitious programme of diversification for a number of years and has met success in supplying communications equipment to the BBC, to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to clients worldwide.
Similarly, Marconi Radar and English Electric Valve are channelling their energies into diversifying while recognising that there will still be important defence contracts to be won. It should not be forgotten that the defence market has not disappeared, but has simply been reduced because of changing circumstances.
It is important for diversification that it is remembered that it is a slow process and means either moving into new markets against well-established competition or investing heavily and speculatively in trying to develop niche markets. Neither can be achieved overnight, and it is

imperative that, during the period of uncertainty and realignment, the Ministry of Defence and the defence industries work closely together. At the end of the day, their needs are mutual. I am pleased that both the companies and the Ministry recognise that they need to co-operate because of mutual interests and mutual future benefits to both sides.
Thirdly, it is crucial that, whenever feasible, British contracts go to British companies to protect British jobs and British expertise. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor on ensuring that more than 90 per cent. of our defence contracts go to British companies. That is only right, because we must look after our own, as one can rest assured that no one else will.
In that respect, I make a plea for Marconi Radar with regard to the RAF tactical radar project. It would give a vital opportunity to put the Ministry of Defence seal of approval on an excellent new product with £300 million of export potential, which would protect jobs. It would also provide an opportunity to preserve unique skills and technology in this country. I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is not in a position directly to comment on that, but in passing I wanted to make a constituency plea for the contract.
When the Ministry of Defence puts out tenders for contracts, it is important that they be dealt with swiftly—contracts for new products, for repair and maintenance, for spare parts or for updating and uprating equipment and services. I appreciate that this is a difficult area, because the Ministry has a duty to secure value for money for its paymasters, the taxpayers, but any speeding up of the process would help defence industry companies. If anything can be done to expedite the awarding of contracts, that would be warmly welcomed by the industry and by the country at large.
Lastly, it is important that everything possible be done to help redundant people to re-skill and get back into work as soon as humanly possible. All the companies in Chelmsford are continuing to do all they can to relocate workers within the GEC group, but that is difficult in today's economic climate. They are also doing all they can to help with counselling and setting up advice units to help these people over an extremely traumatic—in the short term—time in their lives.
It is extremely heartening to see how the Essex training and enterprise council has moved swiftly to respond by trying to help, and by contacting the companies concerned—in this instance, Marconi Radar in particular—to see what it can do to alleviate the problems in the town. I know that everyone is grateful to the TEC for that response, and to the company for considering proposals put to it by the TEC for joint initiatives to tackle the problem.
We must continue to ensure that all possible help is given to re-employ these people and to protect our manufacturing base, which has thrived for so long in Chelmsford. Above all, it is crucial that these men should not be forgotten. No one in Chelmsford can forget their plight because for too long we have had to live with the problems that they are facing. I certainly cannot forget the trauma through which they are going, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon cannot forget them either, because their constituents are similarly affected.
It is important that these men appreciate that everyone is on their side, that we are not prepared to forget them, and that we are all prepared to work together for them. We must lobby the Ministry of Defence for contracts, and work with Essex TEC and the companies concerned to put together packages to help with re-skilling. I hope that the Government will do what they can to ensure that the recovery continues at a sustainable pace so as to create demand, especially in non-defence-related industries. When that demand picks up, companies will respond by taking on skilled workers to meet it.
All these factors amount to a package. We must work together to get workers back into manufacturing as quickly as possible, because there is nothing more debilitating or demoralising for people who desperately want to work than to be unable to use their skills owing to what is happening to defence industries and contracts, here and in the rest of the world, because fortunately we now live in a more peaceful environment.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) not only on his good fortune in winning the ballot and raising this important subject for debate but on the convincing and compassionate arguments that he marshalled on behalf of his constituency.
My hon. Friend's constituency has had a long association with the defence industry, and particularly with GEC-Marconi and its predecessors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has been so consistently energetic and assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituents, particularly in the defence industrial sector. He made a valuable contribution to the major debate that was held in the House in May on the defence industrial base, and he frequently tables parliamentary questions, writes to me and lobbies me and other Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on behalf of his constituents.
In this context, I should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who is here tonight. Many of their constituents also work for GEC-Marconi, and they champion the interests of their constituents. The defence industry workers in that part of Essex are fortunate in having three such doughty fighters for their interests in the House.
The backdrop to, and the reason for, tonight's debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has acknowledged, is the profound recasting of the strategic environment caused by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact. Our recently published defence White Paper, called "Defending the Future", shows in more detail than ever before the way that we have remodelled our forces to take account of those great changes. Immense though the benefits are to our security and economic well-being, those changes are bringing in their wake painful reductions in some parts of the defence industry.
The outcome of the 1992 public expenditure settlement means that, between 1990–91 and 1995–96, the defence budget will reduce by around 12 per cent. in real terms. Sadly, the equipment procurement programme is bound to

diminish in absolute terms, even if not proportionately. However, those reductions start from a high base line, and we shall retain a substantial defence equipment programme. As my hon. Friend was good enough to say, it is certainly not disappearing.
It will still include highly sophisticated and technologically innovative equipment, which will sustain many thousands of jobs in the defence industries, as well as permitting our armed forces to receive the best and most up-to-date equipment. If one adds together our British domestic procurement budget, defence export annual sales, and the opportunities that exist for defence industries in market testing, one gets a total defence cake of well over £13 billion. That shows that there is still plenty for the defence companies to go for, despite the downturn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was most concerned about the recent job losses at GEC-Marconi. I pay tribute to the company for the way that it has made, and is continuing to make, a major contribution to Britain's defence effort, for which we in the Ministry of Defence have been most grateful. I recognise that in recent years, and for a number of reasons, the level of employment in the company in Chelmsford has fallen considerably. I was sorry to learn of the most recent announcement of job losses by GEC-Marconi Radar and Control Systems.
The company employs 1,400 people in Chelmsford on the design and development of radar equipment, primarily for defence applications. The business in Chelmsford is relocating, partly to new premises elsewhere in Chelmsford and partly to another site. The proposed reduction of 300 jobs is in part because a number of jobs needed to run the old site will no longer be required at the new premises, and partly because the company is also reviewing its structure to reduce operating costs and improve its competitive position.
It is of no comfort to those who have lost their jobs that such restructuring is necessary, and indeed vital, if companies are to survive in the new tighter competitive environment. I understand the deep personal distress that those changes cause to individuals and their families. I thought that my hon. Friend was most eloquent on that point, and I can only add my personal sympathy to what he said.
It is right to emphasise that, in the last five years, my Department has placed a large number of contracts with GEC companies in Chelmsford, 20 of which are each worth over £1 million. The total value of contracts placed with GEC companies in Chelmsford over that period is over £100 million.
Among the substantial contracts carried out for my Department in Chelmsford in recent years have been contracts with GEC-Marconi Communications for the supply of satellite communications equipment, and Triffid Army radio link communications equipment; with English Electric Valves for image intensifier tubes; and with GEC-Marconi Radars and Control Systems for tracker radars for the Sea Wolf missile system. These products make an important contribution to our nation's defence effort.
My hon. Friend referred to two projects in particular. The first of these is the programme for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars. We have surplus type 911 trackers as a result of a cancellation of a previous programme.


There is an opportunity to use these to meet the requirement for vertical-launch Sea Wolf on type 23 frigates, but they require some conversion work.
Marconi Radar and Control Systems are already involved in supporting the radars used in several Sea Wolf point defence missile systems. Complex negotiations have now been taking place with Marconi for some time. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are pursuing these vigorously, and hope to be in a position to place the contract by October.
The second programme my hon. Friend asked about is the tactical radar replacement programme for the Royal Air Force. The competition for this requirement, for which GEC-Marconi is one of four contenders, is now in progress. Although the order is a comparatively small one by Ministry of Defence standards, we recognise the importance which both the United Kingdom firms bidding for the work attach to winning it.
I know that my hon. Friend will understand that, until the evaluation of the tenders has been completed, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in detail the merits of any bid across the Floor of the House, but I can assure him that the eloquent points he made will be taken into account in the final decision, which we hope to be able to announce by the end of next month.
I hope that these indications of contract announcement dates will be helpful to my hon. Friend and to all who work at GEC-Marconi.
My hon. Friend referred to a study published by the European Commission which showed Essex as an area of the Community with the second highest dependency on employment in the defence industries. This study was based on work carried out by the centre for defence economics at the university of York. There is no doubt that a substantial proportion of industrial concerns in the county are defence-related, but I have to say that we are not entirely convinced that the comparisons in that study between regions in different member states have been done on a like-for-like basis.
This is not just an academic point, as the study's assessments of overall defence dependency have been used by the commission as the basis for allocating funds under the KONVER programme, to which my hon. Friend referred tonight, and also in his speech in the industrial base debate in May. The KONVER programme is a matter for which the Department of Trade and Industry is primarily responsible.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have some strong reservations about such schemes, because they represent a partial approach to industrial adjustment. We have also taken issue with the basis of allocation of funds between member states. But, having entered these caveats and reservations, the Government intend to take advantage of the scheme in order to help constituencies such as my hon. Friend's. I take on board his point that the criteria need to be changed, and will bring that argument to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend speak of the success of GEC-Marconi in diversification matters, and in particular its sales to the BBC and to other institutions and

companies in the export field. We are delighted when defence companies diversify into new markets, and it makes good sense for many companies to do so.
But it is important to say yet again that it is not for the Government to direct companies to diversify. Our interest is in seeing a profitable and competitive defence industry. It is for companies to decide how best they can be profitable and competitive—and if that means diversifying, so be it. I am glad to hear that GEC-Marconi has done so well without any intervention or orders from Government.
I know that my hon. Friend shares my lack of enthusiasm for a defence conversion agency—a distaste which I feel on grounds of both principle and practice. I will not here rehearse the familiar arguments why this is really another socialist interventionist scheme dressed up in new clothing. I think that we all agree that the Government should give what useful advice and help they can, without in any way being an interventionist Government with taxpayers' money.
The Department of Trade and Industry's recent publication "Changing Tack" provides step-by-step advice for defence companies wishing to diversify, backed by the expertise of professional management consultants Touche Ross. In that way, we assist and encourage management flair, rather than stifling it with regulations, bureaucracy or ill-targeted subsidies paid for by the taxpayer.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that British defence contracts support British jobs and expertise in some 90 per cent. of cases in which we award contracts. We believe in fair and open competition, but the fact that more than 90 per cent. of our contracts go to British firms shows where our heart lies. We do not wish to neglect the importance of Britain's home-grown defence industries.
Let me say a little about our relations with industry generally. It is important that my Department and the defence industry work together closely. We do not believe that relations are in any way unhappy at present; indeed, I was pleased to note that the defence manufacturers gave a cautious welcome to the announcements in the recent White Paper.
I acknowledge that, two or three years ago, there was a feeling—born of the uncertainty of the time—that, during the period of deliberation on "Options for Change", the Department was not as open with industry as it might have been; but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have held ministerial office experienced difficulties at that time. They had to formulate defence-policy parameters and set the priorities—duties which, possibly, are for Government alone.
Once decisions were made, however, we made strenuous efforts to provide industry with all the information necessary to enable it to make sound commercial judgments. Our aim was, and is, to enable companies to remain competitive and successful in both domestic and overseas defence markets. The GEC group as a whole, and GEC-Marconi in particular, have certainly done that.
We are trying to provide the defence industries with as much knowledge of our requirements as possible. There has always been a significant flow of information from the Ministry of Defence to companies right across the spectrum from top-level committees such as the National Defence Industries Council and the Chief of Defence


Procurement's regular meetings with the trade associations, down to the informal contacts between individual companies and MOD officials. The work that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend can do in strengthening that bridge of information and understanding is considerable.
We are doing all that we can to provide defence companies with more and more information. We shall soon publish a comprehensive list of endorsed staff targets and staff requirements, which we shall update annually. Those documents are the driving force for procurement action on all projects in which we expect to spend at least £5 million on development or £10 million on production. We hope that the publication of that comprehensive list will be helpful to all actual and potential defence contractors, including GEC-Marconi.
The process of managing the defence budget is dynamic. Inevitably, we must make painful adjustments to certain programmes from time to time, because of the changing international strategic situation, to which my hon. Friend referred. We shall continue to fine-tune the

programmes, but I think that industry understands the difficulties created by the changes in the world security environment. Although there are bound to be tensions and problems, I think that on the whole there is an amicable and constructive dialogue between my Department and industry.
I feel that, in general terms, we should welcome the more stable international situation that now exists. Of course there are still some trouble spots in the world, such as the former Yugoslavia; nevertheless, we have been able to shift some of our national resources away from defence. I recognise that that is only a modest comfort to those who work in the defence industry, and I sympathise greatly with the plight of the workers in Chelmsford described so eloquently by my hon. Friend. Sadly, it is a fact of life that there will be fewer MOD orders in the future than in the past; that is why companies such as GEC-Marconi are having to adapt accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve midnight.